Using Simulations to Develop Intercultural Communication Competence in an EFL Methodology Seminar

  • Teresa Siek-PiskozubEmail author
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)


One of the most recent concerns of foreign language pedagogy is the intercultural communication competence (henceforth ICC), which has been recognised as its major objective. Drawing on the research form (inter) cultural studies, formal documents motivating foreign language teaching attach great importance to developing ICC. Different approaches are recommended and studied empirically. This chapter aims at sharing observations stemming from the implementation of simulations on ICC issues in a seminar devoted to constructivism in language education, offered to prospective English as a foreign language teachers at two Polish universities. The analysis of the observed impact of the use of simulations is preceded by a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of ICC development.


Foreign Language Prospective Teacher Target Language Language Education Intercultural Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aleksandrowicz-Pędich, L. 2009. Skuteczność przygotowania studenta filologii angielskiej do roli mediatora kulturowego. In Kształcenie językowe w szkolnictwie wyższym, ed. H. Komorowska, 133-149. Warszawa: Academica.Google Scholar
  2. Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. 1981. The dialogical imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, E. 2007. Nauczyciel jako mediator kulturowy. Kraków: Tertium.Google Scholar
  5. Brander, P., C. Cardens, R. Comes, M. Taylor and J. de Vicente Ahd. 1995. All different all equal. Education pack: Ideas, resources, methods and activities for intercultural education with young people and adults. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  6. Barna, L. M. 1998. Stumbling blocks in intercultural communication. In Basic concepts of intercultural communication, ed. M. J. Bennett, 173-190. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bielecka, M. 2006. Personalizacja treści pozajęzykowych na zajęciach praktycznych z języka niemieckiego. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Institute of Applied Linguistics, Adam Mickiewicz University.Google Scholar
  8. Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  9. Council of Europe 2001. Common European framework of references for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Corbett, J. 2003. An intercultural approach to English language teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  11. Graz Declaration on language education (2010) (, accessed 2 September 2010).
  12. Crystal, D. 2003. English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kohenen, V., R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikonen and J. Lehtovaara. 2001. Experiential learning in foreign language education. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  14. Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Mikułowski-Pomorski, J. 2006. Jak narody porozumiewają się ze sobą w komunikacji międzykulturowej i komunikowaniu medialnym. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
  16. Siek-Piskozub, T. 1996. Simulation in ESP. In Selected papers from the 1st CER conference of the FIPLV, eds I. Pýchová and L. Vibiralová, 95-106. Ostrava: Filozofická fakulta Ostravské university.Google Scholar
  17. Siek-Piskozub, T. 2001. Uczyć się bawiąc. Strategia ludyczna na lekcji języka obcego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
  18. Siek-Piskozub, T. and A. Strugielska 2007. Jak kształcić nauczyciela autonomicznego? Historia pewnego seminarium. In Dydaktyka języków obcych na początku XXI wieku, eds. M. Jodłowiec and A. Niżegorodcew, 337-348. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.Google Scholar
  19. Strugielska, A. and T. Siek-Piskozub. 2008. Conceptual metaphors as a reflection of personal experience in education. In Metaphor and cognition, eds. Z. Wąsik and T. Komendziński, 117-132. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  20. Tansey, P. J. and D. W. Unwin 1969. Simulation and gaming in education. London: Methuen Educational Ltd.Google Scholar
  21. UNESCO 2009. Approved programme and budget 2010–2011. 35C/5. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  22. UNESCO 2010. Action plan for celebration of the International Year for the Rapprochement of Cultures in 2010. (, accessed 4 July 2010).
  23. Van Ek, J. A. 1986. Objectives for foreign language learning. Vol. I Scope. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  24. Zawadzka, E. 2004. Nauczyciele języków obcych w dobie przemian. Kraków: Impuls.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EnglishAdam Mickiewicz UniversityPoznańPoland

Personalised recommendations