International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2020, Vol.14, No. 1, pp.29-37

Developing Cultural Intelligence (CQ) through Experiential
Learning: Considering relevance and rationale in Blended
Environments
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
The evolution of learning technologies remains a central concern for instructional designers. Practitioners continue to rely
on existing learning theories, such as experience-based learning (EBL), to explore the utilization of new technologies,
applications and tools. Research suggests that an integrated pedagogy for the development of intercultural competence
remains underdeveloped. As part of a larger project that applies instructional design (ID) theory to the development of
cultural intelligence (CQ), this paper explores the rationale for, and utilization of EBL in a blended environment at aJapanese university. Results from a self-assessed learning reflection analysis indicate an EBL impact on participants’
perceived identity, cognitive development, values and belief systems, as well as behaviors toward others. Preliminary findings
indicate impactful CQ learning gains and support for the blended approach; however, the exact role of EBL in these gains
is difficult to trace and will continue to require further investigation.

Keywords: blended learning; cultural intelligence; experiential learning; instructional design; Japanes
e higher education

Introduction
Advancing learning technologies are impacting educational systems everywhere. Although many developments
have been hailed as “saviors” of the education system, their impact on learning design remains contentious and needongoing scrutiny (Alonso, López, Manrique & Viñes, 2008). There are indications, for instance, that traditional
pedagogies are not always adapting well to new learning technologies (Alonso, López, Manrique & Viñes, 2005; 2008).
Some researchers have even pointed to a relative loss of focus on the learning process itself (Pazos, Azpiazu, Silva &Rodriguez-Paton, 2002; Alonso et al., 2008). From an instructional design (ID) perspective, it therefore seems
necessary to carefully (re)consider how traditional approaches are blended with new educational technologies to ensurethat learning remains effective.
Educational institutions everywhere are challenged to adapt in response to globalization (Sit, Mak & Neill, 2017).
Higher education (HE) institutions increasingly compete for talented graduates in the global arena and are keen to
attract an international student population (Suharti, Handoko & Haruta, 2019). These trends are also visible in Japan,
where the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) has promulgated acomprehensive, partially incentivized HE reform program. Among many goals, it aims to “… help students develop
the ability to act globally and accelerating other globalization initiatives” (Top Global University, MEXT, 2020).

IJEMT, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2020, pp.29-37 ISSN 1882–2290

29

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2020, Vol.14, No. 1, pp.29-37

Underlying these expectations is an assumption that universities play a crucial role in cultivating students with a
global mindset. Studies of cultural competence concur that a global mindset – underpinned by the notion ofintercultural competence (ICC) (Roux, 2018) – must be intentionally developed through guided training and effective
learning experiences (Berardo & Deardorff, 2012; Sit et al., 2017). Research typically suggest a broad variety of learningand training interventions to cultivate a global mindset. These include lectures, short courses, skills-training workshops,
foreign immersions and/or fieldwork, among others (Kedia & Mukherji, 1999; Fischer, 2011; Berardo & Deardorff,
2012; Leung, Ang & Tan, 2014). Over time, guided training and the learning experiences forthcoming from exposure
to diverse stimuli provided by unknown environments, languages, traditions and values help to instill a flexible mind
and a way of being that reflects ICC and signifies a global mindset (Roux, 2018).
ICC research has broad interdisciplinary roots that has been criticized for lacking a single comprehensive approach,but a recent construct – cultural intelligence (CQ) (Ang, Van Dyne & Tan, 2011; Ang, Van Dyne & Rockstuhl, 2012)– has shown particular promise in helping to integrate disparate sets of theories, training and tools (Ang et al., 2011;
Leung et al., 2014). CQ applications in HE (Fischer, 2011; Suharti, 2019), points to its strong theoretical overlap with
notions of a global mindset and ICC (Kedia & Mukherji, 1999; Roux, 2018). Critically, studies in ICC have highlighted
that the training and/or instructional guidance (pedagogy) which should underpin the development of this complex
set of skills are not always clear, may be haphazard or sometimes non-existent (Fischer, 2011; Berardo & Deardorff,
2012; Ang et al., 2012; McNab, 2012; Roux, 2018).
The present paper continues a project that centralizes ID issues in CQ education for HE, and in the current
instance focuses explicitly on EBL, which is commonly employed in ICC or CQ training (Berardo & Deardorff, 2012;
Leung et al., 2014). We consider a broad research question in view of our project’s larger goal and its application in a
blended environment: whether EBL needs to be reevaluated and/or adjusted in view of the impact of educational
technologies on the learning process. Earlier research linking CQ development through applications of ID theory(Roux & Suzuki, 2017) identified a neglect of cultural influences in the design of instruction and e-learning (Thomas,
Mitchell & Joseph, 2002; Clem, 2004; Henderson, 2007; Rogers, Graham & Mayes, 2007, Parrish & LinderVanBerschot, 2010). Our project created a framework to investigate CQ development using the EBL approach inconjunction with ID theory (Roux & Suzuki, 2017), which was expanded in later iterations to a blended university
course focused on developing CQ (Roux et al., 2018, 2019a, 2019b). Results showed CQ increases for participants,
but also indicated that EBL for CQ development in a blended setting needs further refinement and explication.
For the current purpose, we therefore focus mostly on theoretical aspects of an EBL approach that centralizes CQ
learning. Because studies utilizing EBL in CQ development remain sparse (McNab, 2012; Sit et al., 2017), we aim to
explore some theoretical links, and present a few preliminary findings to invite future development. To this end, we
briefly review and discuss (1) CQ and its current relevance; (2) the features of, and rationale for EBL, and how it links
with CQ theory, and (3) how a blended approach was utilized in our project. Limited survey data are presented to
explicate our line of enquiry with regard to the role of EBL in a blended HE environment, while findings consider the
instructional implications for CQ learning.

Cultural Intelligence (CQ)
Globalization is increasing cultural diversity, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of what it means to beinterculturally competent. Developments in the ICC field has recently suggested the notion of CQ, which is broadly
defined as… “an individual’s capability to function effectively in culturally diverse settings” (Ang et al., 2011). CQ
helps people develop an overall perspective and manner of interacting with culturally unfamiliar situations, rather than
expecting individuals to master all the values, norms and practices of only certain cultures (Ang et al., 2012). In
culturally unfamiliar situations, where the perspectives and behaviors of others may seem bizarre or random, having
a high CQ means taking in the confusing situation, carefully reflecting about what is happening – or not happening –and making appropriate adjustments to understand, relate and/or react to what is happening. This complex skillset,
which anyone can acquire, comes about with guided learning and experience over time (Livermore, 2011).
The Cultural Intelligence Center 1 identify four CQ capabilities to characterize intercultural capacity: (1) CQ drive –a person’s motivation, interest and confidence in settings with cultural diversity; (2) CQ knowledge – how cultures are
similar or different; (3) CQ strategy – how we make sense of culturally diverse experiences and social situations; and,(4) CQ action – the capability to adapt one’s verbal and non-verbal cultural behavior to suit a particular context. CQ is
therefore distinctive from IQ (general mental ability) and EQ (emotional intelligence) in that it identifies a set of
1 The Cultural Intelligence Center https://culturalq.com/
IJEMT, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2020, pp.29-37 ISSN 1882–2290

30

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2020, Vol.14, No. 1, pp.29-37

capabilities necessary for personal and professional success in multicultural contexts. CQ is thus set of malleable
capabilities that enables effective functioning in culturally diverse settings (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Ang et al., 2012).
CQ is an encapsulating construct for ICC, retains predictive validity across contexts, and is practically useful since
it explicates the capacities required for success in diverse situations, whether these are domestic or international (Anget al., 2012; Leung et al., 2014). CQ studies demonstrate a positive impact on graduates (Fischer, 2011; Sit, et al., 2017;
Roux & Suzuki, 2017), while EBL for CQ development has also shown effectiveness (Ng, Van Dyne & Ang, 2009;
MacNab, Brislin & Worthley, 2012; Leung et al., 2014). Since the CQ model is still relatively new, instructional models
for its application remain scarce (MacNab et al., 2012; Roux et al., 2018), while ID studies have highlighted thenecessity for acknowledging cultural influences in learning design (Parrish & Linder-Vanberschot, 2010; Clem, 2004;
Thomas, Mitchell & Joseph, 2002). These issues remain fundamental to our project and the aim here is to consider
whether an EBL approach in CQ education retains utility in blended environments.

Experiential learning
To develop ICC and/or CQ, EBL approaches have often been cited as more effective than traditional didactive or
cognitive educational methods (MacNab, et al., 2012; Eisenberg, Lee, Brück, Brenner, Claes, Mironski & Bell, 2013;
Sit et al., 2017; Ng, Van Dyne & Ang, 2009). Furthermore, EBL’s continued popularity seems linked to its broad
application: formal and informal types of learning, as well as incidental, lifelong and workplace learning (Andresen,
Boud & Cohen, 1995). At its most succinct, learning was defined by Kolb (1984, p. 38) as: “… the process whereby
knowledge is created through the transformation of experience”. Learning is therefore not simply reducible to a single
set of methods, strategies or formulas. Instead, Andresen et al. (1995) typifies EBL as uniquely able to integrate
learning material in a personally meaningful way. Learning designs that follow this approach thus aim for: (i) learners’
personal engagement; (ii) debriefing and reflection as required stages; (iii) learning that involves the whole person(affect, cognition, senses, etc.); (iv) a recognition of what the learner brings to the learning process; (v) a basic ethicalstance toward the learner that includes values of respect, validation, trust, etc. (Andresen et al., 1995).
Although research in the area of CQ development through EBL methods remain scarce, MacNab (2012) suggeststhat it remains the most promising approach given its value in addressing all of the dimensions identified in the CQ
model (meta-cognition/strategy, cognition/thought, motivation/interest, and behavior/action). For instance, CQ
training that utilized EBL (MacNab, 2012; Eisenberg et al., 2013) involved a processual approach and delivered rich
results, with participants reporting a meaningful experience. Similar findings indicated that “learning through doing”(Sit et al., 2017, pg. 3) was more effective in improving cross-cultural adjustment. A framework for learning andinvestigation that specifically integrated corresponding components of EBL and CQ (Roux & Suzuki, 2017) further
demonstrated a positive effect on learners’ CQ development. The strength of EBL therefore seems to lie in its ability
to activate and further an intrapersonal process that leads to personal growth in the areas of ICC/CQ.
Despite its many benefits, a critical review of more than 80 studies that utilized EBL in a variety of learning
environments (Gosen & Washbush, 2004) points to an inconclusive finding in terms of its effectiveness. The key issue
is that a single means for assessing and capturing the individual reflective learning experience remains elusive due tothe unique and complex nature of the learning experience (Gosen & Washbush, 2004). Nevertheless, we suggest thatthe widespread and well-documented use of EBL in education, across disciplines in HE, as well as in CQ training(McNab, 2012; Eisenberg et al., 2013; Sit et al., 2017; Roux et al., 2018) demonstrate a sufficient credibility forcontinued exploration of its validity in CQ education and training within the HE context.

Blended Learning
Computer-assisted learning and the Internet has radically changed the teaching paradigm (Alonso et al., 2005),
challenging HE to adopt appropriate pedagogies. Blended learning offers useful possibilities to enhance the traditional
ways of learning and is well suited to accommodate the variable influences brought about through the continuous
introduction of new technologies (Dziuban, Hartman & Moskal, 2004). This model mixes various event- orexperience-based activities and may include live e-learning (synchronous), self-paced learning (asynchronous) and faceto-face classrooms (Alonso et al., 2005; Watson, 2008). Defined as “… a pedagogical approach that combines theeffectiveness and socialization opportunities of the classroom with the technologically advanced possibilities of theonline environment…” (Dziuban et al. 2004, p. 3), it has potential for maximizing advantages of both worlds, as
learners and instructors assume new roles in the learning process.
Practically speaking, blended learning can occur in a range of situations that sees technologies combined withtraditional approaches. Typically, this occurs along a continuum that ranges from fully traditional, face-to-face (F2F)IJEMT, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2020, pp.29-37 ISSN 1882–2290

31

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2020, Vol.14, No. 1, pp.29-37

situations at the one end, to completely online, at a distance and with no F2F interactions involved at the other end(Watson, 2004). This type of learning is thus a fundamental redesign of the instructional model and has particular
relevance here since a significant portion of our learning intervention were achieved utilizing online support, despite
occurring in a traditional F2F environment. Reports from earlier stages in this project (Roux et al., 2018; 2019a; 2019b),
indicated that this model is well-suited to both EBL and CQ education, thus supporting our current line of enquiry.

CQ learning, EBL & Blended learning: Theoretical alignments and research considerations
CQ theorists adopt the position that individuals can be educated and trained to develop their ICC over time, andthat this growth is a mental process encompassing knowledge, personal competencies and actionable behaviors (Leunget al., 2014). Earlier discussion pointed to sufficient rationale for EBL to be employed as an instructional method for
CQ education. Both EBL and CQ theory favor a holistic approach with the learner at the centre, encouraging active
learning and aiming for an integrative and transformative experience. These parallels inform the foundations of ourframework (Roux & Suzuki, 2017) that investigates CQ education. This approach grew out of the research contention
that ICC lacks a pedagogy to further CQ education (Fischer, 2011; MacNab, 2012; Eisenberg et al., 2013; Roux &Suzuki, 2017; Sit et al., 2017; Roux et al., 2018). Our framework integrated ID, EBL and CQ theory, aimed for effective
learning, tracked and evaluated the ICC learning process and delivered rich data for a learning analysis. Later iterations(Roux et al., 2018; 2019a & 2019b) utilized this framework in a blended environment with Japanese undergraduates
enrolled in a 15-week ICC course. Findings indicated that the blended format was conducive to CQ learning since itallowed for a facilitated, variable and alternately focused manner of instruction in a F2F classroom context, while
simultaneously allowing for the use of online technologies as learning tools. Figure 1 below (Roux et al., 2018) depicts
this blended approach with all its components.

Figure 1. A blended learning model for CQ (Roux et al., 2018)
For the current purpose, we draw attention to the EBL approach that informed the design for the classroom
learning activities in the abovementioned course. In alignment with our project’s goal and in consideration of theblended situation, we consider a broad research question: whether EBL needs to be reevaluated and/or adjusted inview of the impact of educational technologies on the learning process.

Research Design, Methods and Procedures
Course designs for CQ
Expanding on our framework for CQ learning (Roux & Suzuki, 2017), we designed and implemented a 15-week
ICC course. Learning content (figure 1) included the following: (a) textbook studies; (b) classroom worksheets; (c) aseries of mini-lectures; (d) experience-based classroom activities (in groups/pairs); (e) online media (videos, audio,
readings, public lectures); (f) one multi-cultural workshop; (g) a Moodle-based international virtual exchange withstudents in a foreign setting; and (h) homework, based on a flipped model of instruction (Roux et al., 2018).
IJEMT, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2020, pp.29-37 ISSN 1882–2290

32

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2020, Vol.14, No. 1, pp.29-37

Procedures and context
Classes were conducted weekly in a F2F blended environment and instructional methods included variations offacilitated group- and/or pair work, online media (on PCs or smart devices) and lectures. Students met weekly for a
90-minute, F2F class in a PC lab with Wi-Fi and audio-visual equipment. The course included a Moodle-based,asynchronous exchange with a group of Colombian college students. Thirty undergraduates (2nd & 3rd years)
participated and the gender balance was 63% female and 37% male. The majority of the group (64%) reported limited
to moderate prior intercultural experience.

Measurement and analysis
Short, weekly learning reflections to track course engagement were recorded online through Google forms. Selfassessments are typical of an EBL approach and were analyzed to provide insights into learner progress and to guide
instructional procedures. In addition, more extensive summative and formative evaluations took place at 4 intervals
to get a sense of learner participation and performance. These learning reflections and evaluations included both
structured feedback and unstructured (‘free comments’) sections to gather learner feedback, on the premise that it
would invite both targeted and unsolicited learning self-reflections that could link to the goals of our investigation. In
terms of the EBL approach, Lewis & Williams (1994) observe that methods which combine learners’ previous
experiences, link conceptual foundations with practice and encourage reflection are pivotal for personal learning.
Earlier research (Roux et al., 2018; Roux et al., 2019a; 2019b) suggested that EBL is well-suited for CQ training but
needed further exploration to determine exactly how these EBL methods (such as classroom-based, online interactions,and guided interactive activities) can be linked to CQ growth.

Results
Assessing learning impact
In terms of EBL’s impact, four self-assessed structured learning reflections were analysed to gain insights into
participant learning and knowledge retention, combined into a self-assessed overall learning impact for each learningreflection/review (Figure 2). The reviews were directly related to the course’s learning and was summarized along fourcontent-based themes: (Review 1) What is culture? Hidden culture and differences; (Review 2) Conflict & identifying
conflict; (Review 3) Values and belief systems – role in conflict; (Review 4) Perception & stereotypes.

Figure 2. Self-assessed overall learning impact as indicated by course reviews
Analysis attempted to gain a sense of the broad impact of learning based on the rating participants gave inanswer to a single question: How successful did you learn about (contents of this module) and culture? – during each learningreflection. It was assessed on a 3-point Likert scale: definitely – large extent – somewhat. Analysis shows the variable selfassessed impact that cultural learning had on students and indicate (in %) a self-ascribed value that, for the majorityof students, shows a learning impact in the definitely – large extent range. This depiction also makes it possible to see
the comparative variable impact of each module in relation to the others, thus providing guidance for instructional
adjustments.
IJEMT, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2020, pp.29-37 ISSN 1882–2290

33

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2020, Vol.14, No. 1, pp.29-37

A further breakdown of the learning impact, as reflected through each separate learning review is presented below
in figures 3, 4, 5 and 6. Students reflected on, and gave a self-assessed indication of their engagement with each course
module. These learning statements were designed as attempts to capture student understandings regarding theknowledge and content of the course, to gain insights about thinking and behaviours, and to obtain a self-estimatedimpact of the learning on future behaviours. Choices to measure the impact were arranged as follows: a little – somewhat– large extent – definitely. The structured reflection statements were: (1) I got new insights and it made me think deeply (2) I willchange my actions and behaviour towards other people; (3) I will change my thinking and behaviour in the future; and (4) It made mequestion my identity. No instances of ‘a little’ were recorded on the scale and this category was therefore eliminated in
the analysis.
Results for review 1 (figure 3 – What is culture?) indicate impactful learning that links to knowledge building,critical thinking and assessment of consequent future behaviour. This is perhaps to be expected given the theoreticalnature of the module contents. The majority of participants reported an impactful learning experience (large extent –definitely), but less pronounced on assessing the impact on their identity. Results for review 2 (figure 4 – conflict &identifying conflict) points to an emphasis on student knowledge gains and a potential impact on personal future behaviors,
and to a lesser extent, gaining new personal insights and potential actions toward others in the future. Again, themajority of participants indicated an impactful learning experience (large extent – definitely), but less pronounced on
assessing the impact on their identity. The results for review 3 (figure 5 – values & belief systems), shows a comparatively
less pronounced effect overall for the majority of participants; and although less, still impacted cognition in the areas
under study. Review 4 (figure 6 – perception & stereotypes) shows a pronounced impact on students’ thinking, an impact
on how they viewed their own behavior, including actions toward others and a consideration of their identity, with apotential impact on thoughts and behaviors in the future.

Figure 3. Learning self-assessment – Review 1

Figure 4. Learning self-assessment – Review 2

IJEMT, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2020, pp.29-37 ISSN 1882–2290

34

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2020, Vol.14, No. 1, pp.29-37

Figure 5. Learning self-assessment – Review 3

Figure 6. Learning self-assessment – Review 4

Summary of Findings
The current paper explored the value of an EBL approach to support CQ education in a blended undergraduate
course. To support the investigation, it further presented limited data from participants’ self-assessed learningreflections to help evaluate the potential impact of intercultural learning that could be tied to CQ development. A
brief review of the relevant literature indicated strong theoretical support for an EBL approach to CQ education,
whereas earlier results from our larger project concerned with developing a CQ pedagogy further extended support
for the current line of inquiry (Roux & Suzuki, 2017; Roux et al., 2018, 2019a, 2019b). The current set of preliminary
results indicate an impactful learning experience, in terms of cultural learning, as self-assessed by our participants. To
slightly extend this finding, it is relevant to note that the summative results from this course (used for grading),
reflected high average scores on tests/quizzes, suggesting cognitive gains in the evaluated areas of learning. These
were associated and interpreted as general support for CQ knowledge advances: the CQ growth gains wereindependently assessed and reported elsewhere (Roux et al., 2018; 2019a).
In terms of the potential value of EBL as a learning approach in CQ education, we were able to discern someeffect along four main themes gleaned from participants’ reflective feedback: (1) insightful understanding andintegration of new cultural knowledge; (2) a perceived potential impact on actions and behaviours toward other people
as a result of the classroom learning experiences; (3) a forecasted impact on future thinking (strategies) and action
with regard to new experiences; and (4) a clear, if limited, engagement with the classroom experience to the extent
that participants felt they could relate it to their (personal/cultural) identity. Connecting these themes with CQ gains
seems tenable at this stage, despite the fact that it is a relatively superficial level of analysis. It is however far less clear
how EBL specifically has contributed to these findings, and the investigation therefore points to the likelihood that
EBL performs a very complex role during CQ education. While the learning reflection surveys and reviews provided
insights into different elements of the blended CQ course, they gave virtually no information in terms of the specificimpact of EBL, nor the use of certain adjacent tools as such. If these reflections are taken as indications that CQ
learning advanced, it is imperative that the means for evaluating the impact of EBL are better understood.
Furthermore, the exact features of the educative technologies that helped to achieve this result need to be more
carefully specified. Current indications are encouraging in terms of the larger project goal, but a more sophisticatedapproach for assessing the role of EBL will be required if a more comprehensive understanding of a blended
pedagogy for CQ is desired.
IJEMT, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2020, pp.29-37 ISSN 1882–2290

35

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2020, Vol.14, No. 1, pp.29-37

Conclusion
As part of a larger project that applies ID theory to the development of CQ, this paper explored the rationale
for, and utilization of EBL in a blended environment. The current effort further considered results from an analysisof the CQ learning impact reported by undergraduates. A brief literature review shows sufficient theoretical support
for using an EBL approach in CQ education, while the self-assessed learning reflection analyses indicate an impactfullearning result. Although these findings could be linked to CQ learning, it was not possible (beyond the reported
theoretical rationale) to evaluate the role and exact contribution of the EBL approach that presumably helped todeliver this result. Beyond tracing learner reflections and theoretical support, it therefore remains to be determined
how an EBL approach to CQ education should be assessed and evaluated. We aim to continue with a more exacting
investigation of the EBL approach – utilizing ID methodology – to build a comprehensive CQ pedagogy.

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. (2008). Handbook of Cultural Intelligence. New York: Sharpe.
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.
Berardo, K. & Deardorff, D. (2012). Building cultural competence: Innovative activities & models. Sterling: Stylus Publishing,
LLC.
Clem, F. A. (2004). Culture and motivation in online learning environments. Association for Educational
Communications and Technology (AECT), 27, 183–192.
The Cultural Intelligence Center. (2020). Retrieved from https://culturalq.com/
Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. (2004). Blended learning. Research Bulletin of the Educause Center for Applied
Research (ECAR), Issue 7.
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.
Foley, G. (1995). Understanding adult education and training, (2nd ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. (2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation& Gaming, 35(2), 270–293.
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).
Kedia, B. L., & Mukherji, A. (1999). Global managers: Developing a mindset for global competitiveness, Journal ofWorld Business, 34(3), 230–251.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
Leung, K., Ang, S., & Tan, M.L. (2014). Intercultural competence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology andOrganizational Behavior 1(1), 489–519.
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 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.
IJEMT, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2020, pp.29-37 ISSN 1882–2290

36

International Journal for Educational Media and Technology
2020, Vol.14, No. 1, pp.29-37

Macnab, B., Brislin, R. & Worthley, R. (2012). Experiential cultural intelligence development: context and individual
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 ofManagement Education 36(1), 66–94.
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.
Pazos, J., Azpiazu, J., Silva, A. & Rodríguez-Patón, A. (2002). A virtual classroom based on academic memories.
Proceedings of Information Society and Education (ICTE 2002): Monitoring a Revolution. Badajoz, Spain, pp. 87–92.
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. (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 andTechnology, 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 for blended
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: do interculturalinteractions and Host University Support™ play important roles? Business, Management and Education, 17, 36–48.
Thomas, D. & Inkson, K. (2003). Cultural Intelligence: People skills for global business. San Francisco, CA: BK.
Thomas, M., Mitchell, M., & Joseph, R. (2002). The third dimension of ADDIE: A cultural embrace. TechTrends, 46(2),40–45.
Top Global University Project. (2020). Retrieved from https://tgu.mext.go.jp/en/about/index.html
Watson, J. (2008). Blended learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education. North American Council for Online
Learning (NACOL).

IJEMT, Vol. 14, No. 1, 2020, pp.29-37 ISSN 1882–2290

37