No abstract

Although pupil mobility is a core educational activity within the process of internationalising secondary school education, only modest efforts have been made to investigate pupil mobility in upper secondary school and how to assess it. The aim of this article is twofold. First, it presents an assessment framework—the (To be added after the review) (IAP). The IAP, which was designed through action research in the context of the Italian upper secondary school, is composed of a set of tools and follows a multimethod, multiperspective and longitudinal approach. Second, the article shows the pedagogical value of the IAP. Indeed, results suggest that some of the IAP’s tools, especially those requiring deep reflection on the self and on the intercultural experience, foster pupils’ self-awareness and critical thinking. These form key aspects of intercultural competence, which is one of the principal expected learning outcomes of pupil mobility.

The article aims to rethink the concept of intercultural conflict. Specifically, I argue that the use of the adjective “intercultural” within ‘intercultural conflict’ is usually an expression of rhetorical discourse or is not appropriate. Following a semantic analysis I show that a cultural conflict, here conceptualized as incompatibility of cultural values between a minimum of two people belonging to different cultural backgrounds, might be described as an intercultural conflict. This is possible if the interactants, rather than focussing on solutions, adopt an ‘intercultural attitude’ (comity, ethical relativism, critical self-reflection, openness toward a potential change, suspending judgment, reframing meanings, curiosity, respect, and self-decentralization) between them. Existing theoretical concepts are explored through qualitative research examining supposedly interculturally competent high school students’ (after one scholastic year abroad) attitudes towards others during a cultural conflict. The study shows that curiosity and respect towards others might be considered as preconditions for a true dialogue. Two main attitudes emerge from the analysis: the multicultural one and the intercultural one. The former corresponds to respect for the different ideas of others. The second is exemplified by true interaction between interactants who seek a deep understanding of what is behind the point of view held by themselves and others. Adopting an intercultural attitude, they make all possible efforts to truly encounter each other’s otherness.

No abstract