Content uploaded by Nimrod Delante
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nimrod Delante on Jul 15, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjic20
Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjic20
Classroom Teaching as an Intercultural
Communication Phenomenon: A Thematic
Analysis of a Foreign Teacher’s Rhetorical Practices
as Communication Dynamic
Nimrod Delante
To cite this article: Nimrod Delante (2020): Classroom Teaching as an Intercultural
Communication Phenomenon: A Thematic Analysis of a Foreign Teacher’s Rhetorical
Practices as Communication Dynamic, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, DOI:
10.1080/17475759.2020.1790406
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2020.1790406
Published online: 13 Jul 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Classroom Teaching as an Intercultural Communication
Phenomenon: A Thematic Analysis of a Foreign Teacher’s
Rhetorical Practices as Communication Dynamic
Nimrod Delante
University of the Philippines Open University, Los Baños, Philippines
ABSTRACT
Theoretically, this study is framed within the rhetorical tradition of
communication theory which theorizes communication as the prac-
tical art of discourse and problems of communication as social
exigencies requiring collective deliberation and judgement.
Methodologically, this study is inuenced by hermeneutic empiri-
cism as a qualitative/interpretivist framework which helped in mak-
ing sense of human participant data guided by the rhetorical
criticism as a lens.
The rhetorical nature of classroom teaching as an intercultural
communication phenomenon can create social exigencies in com-
munication when the culture of students is in conict with the
culture of teachers when it comes to teaching, and when intercul-
tural problems emerge in the classroom. To resolve these social
exigencies, teachers participate in discourse by performing rheto-
rical practices in the classroom. This discourse paves the way for
feedback to emerge as a communication dynamic and helps in the
accomplishment of learning.
A theoretical implication of the ndings of this study underscores
the potential for building existing knowledge about the rhetorical
inuence of imperatives and appeals as feedback dynamics in the
intercultural classroom, as well as the role of intercultural teaching
in dealing with intercultural problems that emerge in class.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 6 February 2020
Accepted 26 June 2020
KEYWORDS
Classroom teaching;
intercultural communication;
rhetorical practices; feedback
dynamic; rhetorical tradition
of communication theory;
rhetorical criticism;
interpretivist framework;
learning accomplishment
Universities today are becoming more globalized, and hence, multicultural. Cultural
differences in the way students and teachers view teaching will remain a social exigency
in these globalized, multicultural universities. On the one hand, these cultural differences
will continue the philosophical debate about which views or assumptions about teaching
and learning are logical and how teaching can be made more strategic, persuasive,
responsive and meaningful for students. On the other hand, these cultural differences
may create intercultural problems that need attention, discussion and resolution.
Regardless of the burgeoning of these cultural differences on views and assumptions
about teaching and on intercultural issues, teaching continues, and teachers will not
attempt to compromise teaching. Instead, they will utilize the power of rhetoric in the
classroom to persuade students to learn, to influence their thinking, to continue to
motivate them, and to inspire them. Teachers continue to serve as a bridge over which
CONTACT Nimrod Delante nimrod.delante@upou.edu.ph; nimrod030582@gmail.com
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2020.1790406
© 2020 World Communication Association
they guide their students to cross, and having facilitated their crossing, encourage them
to craft their own future (Kazantzakis, as cited in Kohlhaas, 2015). Rhetoric remains an
integral part of teaching in response to the radical changes that are happening in the
modern classroom, to the clash of differences in the way students and teachers view
teaching, and to the intercultural problems that pervade in society. Teachers’ rhetorical
practices that constitute their feedback mechanism will have the power that prevails in
the face of student resistance. These rhetorical practices have the power to accomplish
learning, to alter students’ wrong perceptions about social, cultural and educational
issues that affect them, to persuade them to take action in response to intercultural
challenges that they experience such as social injustices, and to have an impact in their
lives.
The metamodel of communication and the rhetorical tradition of
communication theory as theoretical framework
Theorizing classroom teaching as a communicative and a rhetorical act necessitates
a structuring of this study within the constitutive model of communication as metamo-
del. In reconstructing communication theory as a field, Craig (1999) suggested that
communication scholars must aim for dialogical-dialectical coherence, that is,
. . . a common awareness of certain complementarities and tensions among different types of
communication theory, so it is commonly understood that these different types of theory
cannot legitimately develop in total isolation from each other but must engage each other in
argument.” (p. 124)
Craig’s intention was to explore how communication theory might be reconstructed
within a practical discipline to reveal those complementarities and tensions and consti-
tute a coherent field. For this reason, Craig proposed a theoretical matrix reflecting
different traditions of communication theory whose construction was based on two key
principles. One of these principles is derived from the constitutive model of commu-
nication as metamodel.
The constitutive model of communication as metamodel is the dialectical opposite of
the transmission model of communication whereby communication is viewed as the
sending and receiving of messages from one to another. The metamodel conceptualizes
communication as a constitutive process that “produces and reproduces shared meaning”
(Craig, 1999, p. 125) within the intellectual, social and cultural norms of society. For
example, if we view classroom teaching as the transmission of information from the
teacher as an expert to students as novices, we are guilty of the fact that we are highly
influenced by the transmission model of communication. We are also guilty of the fact
that we are highly influenced by the instrumentalist perspective of education whereby
students are viewed as clean slates or having deficiencies, the reason they need help from
teachers. However, if we view classroom teaching as the practical art of discourse with the
aim to deliberate and co-create knowledge, we are moving a step away from the transmis-
sion model by believing that there is more to teaching than meets the eye, that teaching is
constitutive of rhetoric that paves the way for discourse to happen.
The metamodel offers the communication discipline a sense of focus, a central
intellectual role, and a cultural mission such as to critique the norms of the transmission
2N. DELANTE
model (Craig, 1999) which continue to proliferate in universities, in businesses and in the
larger reservoir of knowledge. Also, the constitutive model of communication as meta-
model is viewed as a practical response to the pressing problems in contemporary society,
e.g. problems arising from the “erosion of the cultural foundations of traditional ideas
and institutions, increasing cultural diversity and interdependence, and widespread
demands for democratic participation in the construction of social reality” (p. 126). If
the transmission model enhances the authority of technical experts in hard sciences, the
metamodel aims to serve the causes of freedom, tolerance, cultural understanding,
democracy and the fight against social problems including inequality, marginalization,
isolationism, racism, xenophobia and the like. With the constitutive metamodel, com-
munication scholars can view processes of communication symbolically in many differ-
ent ways, even including the transmission model.
An outcome of expanding communication theory though a careful examination of its
constitutive element as metamodel is a theoretical matrix that maps the traditions of
communication theory in which each tradition views communication in a very unique
way. One of these traditions is the Rhetorical Tradition of Communication Theory which
theorizes communication as the practical art of discourse and problems of communica-
tion as social exigencies requiring collective deliberation and judgement (Craig, 1999).
The Rhetorical Tradition of Communication Theory recognizes the place of logic and
strategy of communicators (e.g. a foreign teacher in a multicultural university), the
presence of social exigency requiring collective and deliberate thought, the power of
words and intention, the art of persuasion, the value of informed judgement, and the
improvability of practice (Craig, 1999). This way of theorizing communication is useful
for explaining why our participation in discourse, especially public discourse, is impor-
tant and how it occurs, and holds forth the possibility that the practice of communication
can be cultivated and improved through critical study, discourse and education (Craig,
1999). Citing Bitzer (1968), Craig (1999) asserts that problems of communication in the
rhetorical tradition are conceived as social exigencies that can be resolved through the
artful use of discourse to persuade audiences. To make sense of communication as
a practical discipline, these social exigencies require collective deliberation and judge-
ment. These social exigencies require discourse (Bitzer, 1968).
The Rhetorical Tradition of Communication Theory (Craig, 1999) informed this
study’s theoretical pursuit: that classroom teaching is an intercultural communication
phenomenon in which rhetorical teaching practices are utilized as feedback dynamics to
resolve cultural ideas that are in conflict, and therefore impact learning (Witt & Kerssen-
Griep, 2010). In this study, I view classroom teaching as a rhetorical act because of the
presence of intent when teachers communicate with each other and with students along
with the capacity of both parties to participate in meaningful discourse. It is the interplay
of these cultural differences in beliefs and assumptions about teaching along with
utilizing feedback interventions to resolve intercultural conflicts that make intercultural
teaching a social exigency requiring deliberate thought and informed judgement. This
interplay of cultural differences and feedback dynamics requires teachers to use certain
strategies and logic to deal with those ideological differences in views, beliefs and
assumptions about concepts associated with education, race, ethnicity, gender, class,
hierarchy and the like. Intercultural instruction has a certain motive to influence or
alter students’ seemingly flawed perceptions about intercultural issues that they
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 3
experience in classroom interactions such as racism, marginalization, isolationism,
nationalistic attitudes, stereotyping, prejudice and inequality that permeate the multi-
cultural and globalized world. Teachers engage their students in discourse in response to
an intercultural problem that emerges as a social exigency in classroom situations (Bitzer,
1968; Craig, 1999). This participation in discourse is made possible by their rhetorical
teaching practices that constitute their feedback dynamics.
The rhetorical theory and classroom teaching as a rhetorical practice
The core of rhetorical theory or rhetorical criticism is the rhetorical situation that Bitzer
introduced in 1968. Bitzer (1968) stated that the rhetorical situation is a natural context
of persons, events, objects, relations and an exigence which invites utterance and
participation in discourse for meaning and action to emerge. The rhetorical situation is
controlling, powerful and influential that it has to be considered the very ground of
rhetorical theory or rhetorical criticism (Bitzer, 1968). Rhetoric alters reality through
discourse where mediation of thought and action happens with the presence of intention
and persuasion and a critique on competing ideological views. Discourse comes into
existence as a response to a rhetorical situation. Bitzer asserted that any situation
becomes rhetorical insofar as it needs and invites discourse capable of participating
in situations and thereby altering reality and inviting social change.
The rhetorical situation constitutes three key elements: exigence, audience and con-
straints (Bitzer, 1968). Exigence is “an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an
obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be” (p. 6).
Exigence is rhetorical when it creates positive modification which calls for persuasion,
participation in discourse, or assistance by discourse. The audience is another constituent
which “consists only of those persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse
and of being mediators of change” (p. 8). With their capacity for human interaction, the
audience creates such discourse and is capable of serving as mediators of change in
decisions and actions, which the discourse functions to produce. A set of constraints is
“made up of persons, events, objects, and relations which are parts of the situation
because they have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the
exigence” (p. 8). Sources of constraints are ideological in nature which include “beliefs,
attitudes, documents, facts, traditions, images, interests, motives” (p. 8) including the
rhetor’s characteristics as epitomized in Aristotle’s rhetoric, namely: “personal character,
his logical proofs, and his style” (p. 8). Bitzer’s (1968) rhetorical theory paves the way for
ideological critique to happen considering that such constraints are embedded in the
narratives of the audience. These three constituents – exigence, audience and con-
straints – capture the essence of a rhetorical situation. Additional constituents would
include the rhetor (e.g. an orator or speaker) invited by a certain rhetorical situation and
creating and participating in discourse through his/her speech (Bitzer, 1968).
Rhetoric or the rhetorical situation is thus determined by a social exigence where
individuals (the audience) show some degree of interest and a level of ability in respond-
ing to such exigence in many different ways. However, constraints may come into play
which impede or foster the possibility for the audience to deal with the social exigence.
When a speaker (rhetor) intervenes by offering opportunities for possible communica-
tion exchange (discourse) between and among the audience and himself, then rhetoric
4N. DELANTE
emerges and takes some shape. The rhetor’s sense of agency (aided by his persuasive
ability, speech and integrity) to deal with exigence and his influence to invite the audience
to take part in the social discourse also play a role in constructing the rhetorical situation.
More importantly, the larger social, symbolic, cultural, economic, historical and political
contexts from which the social exigence is created and dealt with enables rhetorical
criticism to come into life and have bearing and relevance to the human condition (Foss,
2012).
With the rhetorical situation being constitutive of social exigence, perspective, argu-
ment and intention, we can safely say that rhetorical criticism is a framework that helps
in interpreting human symbols or human symbolic exchange that paves the way for
a strong connection between discourse and social change (Foss, 2012). This being said, it
is safe to argue that rhetorical theorists study and interpret almost every kind of context
in which symbol use occurs from intrapersonal communication, to interpersonal com-
munication, to intercultural communication, to public discourse and to social and
political movements. Therefore, rhetorically and symbolically speaking, classroom teach-
ing as an intercultural communication phenomenon is an illustration of a rhetorical
situation determined by a social exigence that calls for discourse and social change to
happen. This social exigence can come in the form of intercultural problems that affect
teachers and students and lead them to participate in discourse. In this study, therefore,
the rhetorical theory proved helpful in treating and analysing narrative data as human
participant data.
In classroom teaching, a social exigence that many teachers experience pertains to
intercultural issues that have the potential to create intercultural conflicts among stu-
dents and between students and teachers. These intercultural problems come alive in the
form of social exigencies in multicultural classrooms requiring discourse, deliberation
and judgement. As a foreign teacher teaching in a multicultural university in Singapore,
I am a witness of these intercultural problems that permeate the many aspects of life, and
I deal with these problems as they emerge in my own classroom. For example, from time
to time, I would encounter students who believe that it is my role (as a teacher) to feed
them with information or to provide them with knowledge, a belief that has a strong
presence in the students’ culture. Holding a fundamental principle about teaching as
a democratizing and an empowering act, I do not falter in reminding my students that
studying in the university necessitates a sense of direction, responsibility and autonomy.
I would emphasize to them the value of independent, self-regulated learning and their
freedom of choice – either to do well in their academic studies in preparation for their
future, or to slack, be passive and fail.
One critical incident I reckon is about being asked to visit an intercultural psychology
class to share some basic traditions that distinguish a Filipino culture from other cultures
in Southeast Asia. While I was sharing some aspects of my own culture, someone in the
audience boldly spoke about the behaviour of Filipino domestic workers in public places
in Singapore. “They are very loud wherever they are. Whether in public transport, in the
mall or in parks, their volume is a public nuisance. How do you describe that kind of
culture?” a male student asked. I was caught off guard. However, in an attempt to
compose myself and to encourage students to have an open mind towards others and
their unique contexts and cultures, I replied by saying, “We need to understand their
context, socio-economic status and educational backgrounds. Also, their noise can mean
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 5
something else such as asserting their existence as human beings. Sometimes, it is their
way of expressing their self-confidence and relevance perhaps because of the feeling of
subjugation and control that they collectively experience.” “Still, that is considered public
nuisance. They must learn to behave themselves. This is not their country,” the student
asserted. “I see your point. I believe the government is doing something to correct that
behaviour through personal development classes. I think the government is doing it
already in partnership with NGOs. I am optimistic that they will change their behaviour
gradually over time, but I request that we be more patient, tolerant and understanding of
others” I proclaimed. As I left that class, I was trying to figure out whether that particular
student has an attitude of xenophobia towards domestic helpers or an ethnocentric
attitude towards migrant workers or ethnic minorities in Singapore. As a teacher, I felt
it was right to speak on behalf of domestic helpers and to appeal for tolerance and
cultural understanding in that rhetorical situation. As these intercultural problems
continue to emerge in class, I am mindful of the fact that I can address them through
intercultural teaching.
Classroom teaching as an intercultural communication phenomenon has a rhetorical
capacity to alter a behaviour, to persuade, or make a change in people’s perceptions,
beliefs or assumptions. When the student was brave to speak his idea about domestic
helpers, I acknowledged his freedom of expression, but I also felt it was right to respond
to his seemingly xenophobic attitude with the intention to open his mind, to encourage
patience, empathy and understanding, and to alter those flawed assumptions he might
have towards this minority group. My response was rooted in the fundamental belief
which is collectively shared by many teachers – that education must open minds,
empower students, and make them nonjudgmental and empathetic to the human con-
dition. Such perceived xenophobic attitude created an exigence for discourse to happen
in that classroom incident. Our communication exchange in the classroom paved the way
for discourse to happen with my intention to change the student’s behaviour towards
a marginalized group of people. This incident captured how a rhetorical situation can
take shape with the emergence of a social exigency.
According to Craig (1999), since we know that communicators vary in wisdom and
skill, and that skill, if not wisdom, can often be improved through instruction and
practice, it is logical to think that people can become effective and persuasive commu-
nicators by learning and practising methods of communication that can be invented,
enhanced and maintained through research and practice, and by participating in dis-
course. With intercultural communication issues including emotion, personal belief or
bias, unique cultural practices, cultural differences, nationalistic attitudes, ethnocentrism,
racism and xenophobia to name a few, we can self-examine, self-reflect and self-
interrogate in connection to the real problems that we face in our own contexts because
rhetorical communication is a practical discipline (Bitzer, 1968; Craig, 1999).
The interpretivist framework as basis for qualitative analysis
In this study, my personal observation of a foreign teacher (named Teacher Y) teaching
in a multicultural university in Singapore had been guided by Bitzer’s (1968) rhetorical
theory grounded in the rhetorical situation. Teacher Y’s teaching of a culturally diverse
group of students from different parts of the world was a rhetorical situation by itself
6N. DELANTE
which spurred exigencies in communication that paved the way for opportunities to
participate in discourse and for Teacher Y to provide necessary feedback interventions.
The coming together of cultural beliefs and backgrounds in a tourism management
classroom (a rhetorical situation) created some tensions and disagreements (a social
exigence) that necessitated discourse, facilitation, mediation and feedback in order to
arrive at a common understanding. I discussed examples of these social exigencies in the
Results section of this paper.
To make sense of my human participant data, i.e. narrative data comprised Teacher
Y’s rhetorical acts that constitute her feedback, I utilized Anderson’s (2014) interpretivist
framework. Conducting research in communication, Anderson (2014) utilized
a qualitative-interpretivist framework in making sense of his human participant data
which he called hermeneutic empiricism. To him, hermeneutic empiricism or the inter-
pretivist turn asks the questions “How do we make it matter?” or “What is the narrative
line in action and discourse that sustains the existence of socially-constructed concepts
such as race or ethnicity?”. The interpretivist framework thereby works from “a narrative
logic of routines and actions, critical instances and episodes, conversation and discourse,
text and practice” (Anderson, 2014, p. 42). Narratives represent stories that generate
action and represent some cultural understanding. These stories have motive, intention-
ality and consequence.
Constitutive and reflexive in nature, the interpretivist framework or hermeneutic
empiricism (Anderson, 2014) has some key characteristics which qualitative researchers
must be aware of as they make sense of human participant narrative data. First, as human
beings, we inhabit the domain of the sign. Within the semiotic domain, we make sense of
ourselves, our world, and our experiences. In short, our behaviour as human beings is
a symbolic expression, not simply an objective fact. Second, central to our experience is
communication that we manage through our discursive and performative practices which
are the resources for our communicative efforts such as our participation in discourse.
Third, our communicative behaviour and experiences are dialogic in nature emerging in
the interaction between self and Other. Our focus in making sense of our experiences and
practices is on relationships, not causation. Fourth, we also recognize and accept human
agency – that a particular individual’s contribution and action illustrates something that is
collectively shared by others. Next, we emphasize the value of actual performances that are
often directed towards the participant-observation method rather than an objective
measurement of action or behaviour. Lastly, we acknowledge the subjective and multiple
meanings of our experiences. We acknowledge that truth is a human accomplishment
within the symbolic domain of human experience. For qualitative or interpretivist
researchers, human truths are expressed in local performances by social agents, not in
the objective analysis of concepts viewed as variables (Anderson, 2014).
In this study, therefore, the interpretivist framework, that which Anderson (2014) called
hermeneutic empiricism, emerged helpful in making sense of my human participant
data – Teacher Y’s narrative data captured in her speech and feedback. Through partici-
pant observation, I was able to enter the lifeworld of Teacher Y, a foreign teacher in
a multicultural university in Singapore. I was also able to relate to what she was doing
because like her, I exist in the same multicultural university as a foreign teacher. I was able
to construct reality that emerged true to Teacher Y’s context as a social agent. I was able to
craft a symbolic representation of her through an interpretive sensemaking of her
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 7
narrative data. I was able to help her share her voice as emancipatory and her action
(teaching and feedback giving) as an accomplishment of social justice, learning and
understanding.
Review of literature
Feedback is a potent force in classroom discourse. The rhetorical artefacts (or rhetorical
practices) of teachers in classroom teaching is constitutive of feedback as a crucial
communication dynamic that helps in making sense of ideas, concepts or issues, and
enables students to accomplish learning. Feedback exists when a social exigence emerges
in classroom discussion (Bitzer, 1968; Burke, 1945; Craig, 1999). There is a necessity for
feedback when students participate in discourse as a communicative response to
a rhetorical exigence in multicultural classrooms, e.g. the surfacing of intercultural
problems such as ethnocentrism or racist views that create tension in class dynamics.
This literature review begins with a discussion of feedback as a communicative
instance in intercultural teaching. Here, I argued that intercultural communication is
a study of feedback that constitutes teachers’ rhetorical teaching practices forming
communication dynamics and discursive interactions. This is followed by an elaborate
discussion on intercultural communication as a study of ethnicity and intercultural
problems as social exigencies that emerge inside and outside the classroom situation.
I ended by stating that understanding intercultural communication also entails an
understanding of interracial dialogues and relationships.
Intercultural communication as a study of teaching practices as feedback
dynamic
Witt and Kerssen-Griep (2010) argued that intercultural classroom teaching constitutes
feedback interventions that impact learning. In a separate study, Kerssen-Griep and Witt
(2014) postulated that the key to successful feedback interventions is the perceived
credibility of the instructor in providing feedback within the intercultural teaching
context. This is rooted in Aristotle’s ethos whereby an instructor’s credibility forms his
rhetorical power or persuasive ability in creating discourse. Such credibility includes
competence, character, and a sense of caring. The authors (Kerssen-Griep & Witt, 2014;
Witt & Kerssen-Griep, 2010) argued that detailed, more elaborate feedback which targets
students’ work and skills is more effective as it provokes the most adaptive and intuitive
student responses compared to short, binary feedback (e.g. correct/incorrect) that
diminishes students’ identity, undermines their capacity and cost their energy, time
and effort.
Kerssen-Griep and Witt (2012; 2014) and Witt and Kerssen-Griep (2010) expressed
that face-threat mitigation feedback tactics delivered in interpersonal or intercultural
settings such as reinforced communication, metacommunication (e.g. building on stu-
dent’s knowledge), sensitivity to students’ desired social image (face), a facework of
perceived caring and concern, a language of tact, solidarity and approbation, and
a sense of understanding of students’ cultures and contexts all contribute to more positive
competence ratings on teachers as well as improve students’ interest, motivation and
confidence towards learning. These feedback dynamics predict students’ responsiveness
8N. DELANTE
and perceived instructor fairness and credibility. With teachers’ perceived caring as
feedback intervention involving face-attentive strategies, focused guidance, effortful
facework and a sense of concern, students will view teachers as people with the best
interests in mind. Kerssen-Griep and Witt (2012; 2014) concluded that both interper-
sonally and interculturally skilled feedback intervention messaging creates more perso-
nalized, effective information reception and processing. This makes the teacher who
provides detailed, high-quality feedback a credible source of helpful guidance, profes-
sionalism and expert knowledge (Kerssen-Griep & Witt, 2014). Credibility, therefore,
reinforces communication in teaching and contributes to the effectiveness of rhetorical
teaching practices as a whole.
However, in feedback interventions, Thompson et al. (2018), presented a caveat. They
recognize that detailed, thorough feedback can foster rich learning, but they can also
work against student resilience, autonomy and self-regulation. Sometimes, thorough
feedback-giving may lead students to develop dependency, rather than autonomy.
Thompson et al., 2018, argued that teachers must be aware of dialectical tensions that
revolve within the larger cultural and contextual teaching situations for feedback inter-
ventions to be effective, meaningful, and successful. They posited that teachers need to
confront, understand and navigate these dialectical tensions in intercultural classroom
teaching (e.g. learning vs grading, objective vs subjective assessment, pushing vs nurtur-
ing) with students to create an inclusive, rigorous learning environment. By revisiting
extant literature on teaching and learning that explores pedagogical strategies such as
alternation, integration, balance, reframing, segmentation, differentiation and ethics,
teachers will realize that their instructional dialectics are engaged in continuous negotia-
tion with opposing discursive imperatives in education (e.g. democratic engagement,
social efficiency, autonomy, creativity, self-discovery and individual status attainment)
rather than as competing psychological needs.
Facework plays a crucial role in mitigated feedback interventions in intercultural
teaching. To Goffman (1981), facework pertains to communication strategies that tea-
chers use to protect, maintain, or restore presented identities in the classroom (as cited in
Witt & Kerssen-Griep, 2010). However, in classroom interaction where unmitigated face
threats surface, the teacher’s ability to influence students’ learning will likely diminish.
Unmitigated face threats include the teacher’s perceived verbal aggressiveness, the use of
a more dominating or controlling language, verbal warnings, and even the use of
imperatives or persuasive language in classroom interaction. Unmitigated face threats
also include direct messaging, imposing disposition and strict rules or standards in
navigating the daily complexities in the classroom. These verbal aggressiveness, strong
imperative statements and dominating, controlling or admonishing language as feedback
dynamics can potentially create face-threatening interactions in intercultural teaching
that may diminish students’ desired goals and damage social relationships (Witt &
Kerssen-Griep, 2010). The use of aggressive and more controlling language in intercul-
tural teaching may lead students to perceive a greater relative power claimed by the
teacher, to see a greater face threat in the admonishing language, and to derogate the
image of the teacher, teaching and the message.
In this particular study, however, direct imperative statements (of Teacher Y as
a research participant) did not emerge as a force that diminishes students’ capacity to
accomplish learning. Rather, these imperative statements emerged as a helpful rhetorical
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 9
teaching practice that enables students to learn the fundamental concepts and dimen-
sions of these concepts in class, i.e. concepts related to tourism destination management.
Despite its nature of directness in classroom discussion, imperatives came out as an
enabler in helping students accomplish understanding of those concepts and theories
introduced in classroom discussion. Imperatives did not appear as a learning impedi-
ment; rather, they appeared to build on feedback dynamics in classroom teaching.
Imperatives, in the case of Teacher Y emerged as a helpful form of feedback expressed
in the teacher’s rhetorical teaching practices. I discussed this in the Results section of this
paper.
Intercultural communication as a study of ethnicity and intercultural issues
in the classroom
Nowadays, classrooms are becoming more globalized and highly multicultural places in
which students from different cultural backgrounds converge and engage in intercultural
exchanges. However, in these intercultural engagements, multiculturalism and other
intercultural issues related to race and ethnicity such as stereotyping, marginalization,
racism, ethnocentric attitudes, prejudice, xenophobia and isolationist perspectives all
play a pivotal role for the emergence of intercultural tensions in classroom discourse.
Many studies contend that the study of intercultural communication is a study of
ethnicity or the impact of ethnic background on how people from different ethnic
cultures communicate. These studies argue that different ethnic backgrounds of indivi-
duals mean different levels of intercultural communicative competence which lead to
different intercultural communication problems. Their different levels of intercultural
communicative competence also mean that they either cope effectively or cope poorly
with the intercultural problems that they face.
Diverse cultures of teachers and students affect motivation and learning in the class-
room. Such diversity includes language, values, worldviews, religious beliefs, and beha-
viour which construct a person’s or a group’s identity. This convergence of several
cultures in the classroom creates tension or a social exigence that necessitates discourse
opportunities to create knowledge and achieve understanding (Brandt, 2007). For
instance, in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious teaching context in Malaysia, Tamam and
Krauss (2017) found that the level of intercultural sensitivity among students is positively
associated with students’ level of ethnic-related diversity engagement, and that ethnic-
related diversity engagement relates differentially to interaction attentiveness, interaction
openness and interaction confidence dimensions of intercultural communication and
intercultural sensitivity. Tamam and Krauss (2017) arrived at these findings through
a survey that examined the correlation of ethnic-related diversity engagement with three
interrelated dimensions of intercultural communication sensitivity among 447 students
in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious public university in Malaysia. Tamam and Krauss
(2017) stated that those who are more engaged inter-ethnically are more likely to develop
interaction confidence than those with lower levels of engagement, while those with
a moderate level of engagement will be more confident in interacting with others than the
low-engagement group. However, those with moderate or low ethnic-related engagement
did not differ in their level of interaction attentiveness and respect. This implies that
engagement in ethnic-related diversity must be relatively high to create a relationship
10 N. DELANTE
with interaction attentiveness and respect. Those at the high and moderate engagement
levels did not differ in their level of interaction openness, but both performed better than
the low-engagement group. These findings indicate that ethnic-related diversity engage-
ment differences have differential levels of influence on interaction attentiveness, respect
and interaction openness dimensions of intercultural communication and intercultural
sensitivity, which happens in intercultural settings such as a multicultural classroom
(Tamam & Krauss, 2017).
Ethnic sensitivity plays a vital role in improving intergroup interactions and
intercultural communication situations. Dong et al. (2008) asserted that ethnic sensi-
tivity and multicultural understanding can help enhance intercultural communication
and reduce thoughts that relate to ethnocentrism, perceived xenophobia, prejudice,
subjugation, and intercultural conflicts during intergroup interactions. This is based
on a survey with 419 young adults in the US. Dong et al. (2008) argued that
respecting ethnic identities and appreciating cultural diversity can improve people’s
intercultural communication and understanding. In a study aimed at understanding
intercultural communication through a group activity in the classroom, Wright &
Lander (2003), analysed the differences in verbal interactions between two ethnic
cohorts, Australian-born Anglo-European and Southeast Asian students, in a business
classroom in an Australian university. Verbal interactions were recorded under two
conditions: mono-ethnic groups containing four students from the same ethnic
cohort, and bi-ethnic groups made up of two students from each ethnic cohort.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed highly significant differences for the main
effect of ethnicity on group interaction. Wright & Lander (2003) found that the
Southeast Asian students showed inhibition in terms of their verbal participation
with Australian students. This shows that ethnicity can either be an empowering or
a disenfranchising force in terms of communicating cross-culturally with people from
different ethnic groups. People’s negative perceptions and perceived ethnocentrism
towards ethnic out-groups, such as foreign students, can lead to prejudice, margin-
alization and stereotyping towards these out-groups. These negative perceptions
include perceived linguistic and cultural barriers that these out-groups are experien-
cing. However, these barriers can be overcome by the in-groups’ willingness to try to
build their social contact with the international community as a way to understand
them better. Intercultural communication will improve when in-groups make efforts
in building intergroup relationships and in cultivating inter-ethnic and culturally
diverse interactions. However, when isolationism or exclusivity is becoming domi-
nant in the culture, inter-group communication and intercultural understanding can
become a huge challenge.
In multicultural service industry markets, ethnicity influences consumer satisfac-
tion and dissatisfaction regarding service encounters. Rizal et al. (2016) interviewed
306 ethnic Malay and Chinese respondents in Malaysia using the critical incident
technique. Their findings suggest that intra-ethnic versus inter-ethnic affiliation
between consumer and service provider influences the evaluation of domestic inter-
cultural service encounters or intercultural communication in general. Also, consu-
mers were found to be more satisfied with service encounters with service providers
of the same ethnic affiliation as themselves. With service providers from a different
ethnic affiliation, consumers were more likely to be dissatisfied in their intercultural
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 11
communication transactions. The authors provided practical insights for managers
regarding how different ethnic consumers are likely to respond to service encounters
in globalized, multicultural service markets. The study showed that ethnicity plays
a role in accomplishing satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) in multicultural service
industries (Rizal et al., 2016; Sharma & Wu, 2015). A theoretical implication under-
scores the potential to reduce ethnocentrism in the multicultural service industry
when both inter-ethnic relationship dynamics are fostered along with the practice of
tolerance of other cultures (Agius & Ambrosewicz, 2003; Haiming, 2019).
In the health industry, culture and ethnicity have often been cited as barriers in
establishing an effective and satisfying doctor–patient relationship. An investigation by
Schouten et al. (2007) revealed that major differences in doctor-patient communication
are brought about by patients’ ethnic backgrounds. They found that White doctors
generally behave less affectively when interacting with ethnic minority patients compared
to White patients, an indication of ethnocentric attitudes towards patients of colour.
Ethnic minority patients (from Asian and African descent) were also less verbally
expressive; they seemed to be less assertive and affective during medical encounters or
face-to-face interactions with their White doctors than were White patients. Schouten
et al. (2007) identified key predictors of culture-related communication problems. These
included differences in cultural values and beliefs, perceived ethnocentric beliefs, per-
ceived inferiority of one’s culture, and cultural differences in patients’ preferences for
doctor–patient relationships, which can be brought about by their unique ethnic
backgrounds.
Ethnicity is entrenched in intercultural communication problems that thrive not only
in classroom situations but also in the larger social contexts. Success in intercultural
communication can be achieved when individuals strive to develop their intercultural
communicative competence to achieve a better understanding and a higher level of
tolerance of other people’s culture and ethnic backgrounds. Higher forms of ethnocentric
attitudes and low levels of tolerance of other people’s ethnic and cultural backgrounds
may hamper effective intercultural interactions or relationships and may lead to inter-
cultural conflicts, misunderstanding and stronger polarizing attitudes towards each and
other cultures.
Intercultural communication as a study of interracial communication
Interracial communication or interracial dialogue both in universities and in society, in
general, evinced difficultly and challenging to handle (Cargile, 2010; Chen & Lawless,
2018; Halualani, 2000; Harris, 2003, 2018; Roux, 2001). Despite this, interracial dialogues
continue to happen due to intercultural pedagogy, globalization and cultural diversity
which proved central to understanding race and its associated constructs such as ethni-
city, class, gender and identity. The deep rifts between Whiteness and people of colour
make intercultural teaching even more relevant in an attempt to enrich intercultural
understanding and contribute to the development of solidarity, racial harmony and
peaceful co-existence.
Intercultural teaching plays an important role in reducing racial prejudice and in
promoting racial sensitivity and awareness through constructive dialogues about race
(Harris, 2003). The intercultural classroom is emerging as an appropriate context for
12 N. DELANTE
impacting how students critically think about race and interracial relations. Through
intercultural teaching, students are prepared to be responsible citizens with the moral
obligation to redress issues of racism, prejudice and discrimination. For successful
intercultural communication about race and racial issues, the multicultural teacher has
to be concerned about each individual student, and also be sensitive to the group and
cultural affiliations of each of his or her students. Intercultural relations in the classroom
may be a rich source of knowledge and mutual enrichment between culturally diverse
learners if managed proactively by teachers (Roux, 2001).
In trying to understand the impact of relational dynamics between students from
different racial backgrounds, Harris (2003) conducted a focused group discussion with
her students aimed at understanding race and interracial relationships. She found that
interracial communication is an experience of intellectual reawakening that transforms
students’ thought processes about race and interracial relationships. By listening to their
narratives, Harris (2003; 2010) discovered that her students viewed race as a social
construct which prompted them to adjust their worldview about interracial communica-
tion. In terms of affect, the students underwent an emotional involvement about the
racial ideals that emerged in classroom teaching and the ways of dealing with these racial
ideals in the real world. Interracial dialogues allowed students to confront their fear,
anger and hatred associated with race and encouraged them to face disagreements in
class as a way to achieve openness and tolerance. In terms of behaviour, intercultural
teaching encouraged students to identify themselves as agents in eradicating interracial
or intercultural issues such as prejudice, stereotyping and racism. Cognition, affect and
behaviour were found to influence students’ ability to understand and transfer classroom
knowledge to real-world human interactions. Most students adopted ways of thinking
and behaviours that combat racism on an interpersonal level (Harris, 2018). Interracial
dialogues helped students to learn to correct racist remarks of others and work towards
empathy, tolerance and acceptance (Alexander & Liu, 2018; Cargile, 2010; Harris, 2003).
For students to value acceptance and to learn to stand up for the rights of others,
Alexander and Liu (2018) facilitated a “Be the change you want to see” project in their
interracial communication subject with the goal of promoting a better understanding of
and sensitivity to the communication dynamics of interracial interactions. Their delib-
erate intention was to improve communication and connectedness among members of
different social and cultural groups in the classroom. In this semester-long project,
students were actively engaged in insight formation and verbal reports which fostered
openness and created a routine and rhythm for the class, helping students to develop
a habit of making mindful observations, honest reflection and informed judgement.
Focused on project-based learning as a pedagogical approach, the students collectively
explored their insights and contemplated on constructive actions in their attempt to
address the complex issues of race and interracial relations (Alexander & Liu, 2018).
In dealing with hate, anger, prejudice, stereotyping and indifference towards other
races, the practice of providing a supportive, trusting, and respectful environment is
encouraged in intercultural teaching; however, this is easier said than done. Sustaining
these interracial dialogues in classroom instruction is never easy because to many
students, these interracial dialogues are uncomfortable, sensitive and risky that they
demand a wealth of experience and a bit of alchemy (Cargile, 2010; Chen & Lawless,
2018). Due to the sensitivity of racial issues, the interplay of power and privilege, and the
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 13
deeply seated rifts between the ideological beliefs of White people and people of colour,
students might develop ennui rather than engagement; they might shut down themselves
from the rest of the class rather than open up and maintain dialogue (Cargile, 2010).
Interracial dialogues where deeply ingrained racial issues pervade may result in
increased prejudice, ostracism, oppression, decreased self-esteem, and reinforced stereo-
types, rather than openness and tolerance. In her profound investigation of interracial
dynamics in her classroom, Cargile (2010) found two strategies that have the potential to
minimize risks inherent to interracial dialogues, namely: adding without contradiction
and granting freedom for conclusions. In sustaining a constructive interracial commu-
nication, adding without contradictions represents the idea that opposition does not
forcibly lead to negation or, put differently, that antipodes can coexist without mutual
exclusion. Students engaged in interracial discussion are encouraged to add ideas without
contradiction by adopting the habit of using “and” instead of “but” in their speech. The
conjunction “and” interjects a subjectivist epistemology into the dialogue by creating
plural realities for the immigrant experience (Cargile, 2010). Granting freedom for
conclusions, on the other hand, is framed in terms of nondualism, nonbinaries and
a stance of non-judgement. No matter how prejudiced a participant’s attitude or how
antagonistic his or her position towards an issue associated with race, facilitation may be
most effective when individuals are received for who they are and accepted where they
are. Cargile (2010) argued that implementing a non-judgemental stance to facilitating
interracial dialogues succeeds in opening up the classroom conversations about race.
Dysfunctional habits must be intervened to enrich capacity for dialogue. No one is
judged. No race is ostracized. Students learn the essence of respect and acceptance.
Students deepen their understanding of others and the world.
Chen and Lawless (2018) offered another strategy to sustain constructive and more
open interracial dialogues in intercultural classroom teaching. In rethinking difficult,
sensitive, risky or uncomfortable classroom conversations that involve the interplay of
privilege, power, and intersecting cultural identities such as racism, Chen and Lawless
(2018) attempted to interweave critical communication pedagogy and intercultural
communication scholarship and proposed a swapping of the communication classroom
to become more inclusive, more multicultural, and more critically conscious in ways that
support equity and social justice. Building on the four pillars of critical intercultural
communication comprising power and cultural communication, identity and intersec-
tionality, context and interaction, and praxis and social justice (see Halualani et al., 2002;
Martin & Nakayama, 1999), Chen and Lawless (2018) proposed a swapped classroom in
which instructors, facilitators, and students become co-learners committed to facilitating
communication interactions that (a) shift the centre and the margins; (b) will oneself to
listen as a feeler/thinker/doer; (c) articulate intersectional reflexivity and inquiry; and (d)
partner for social justice and equity. This swapped classroom advocates for a diversity
agenda that features shared recognitions of privilege and power differentials among
students and teachers through constant reflexivity, an openness to increase understand-
ing of both self and others from varied perspectives, a constant negotiation of language,
content, and interaction agreements, a commitment to thinking/feeling/understanding
how intersectionality influences classroom dynamics, and a continual affirmation of fair,
just, and equitable treatments of all students inside and outside the classroom (Chen &
Lawless, 2018). Through this strategy, a space for difficult, sensitive, risky and
14 N. DELANTE
uncomfortable conversations can emerge and the potential for racial harmony, solidarity,
acceptance and tolerance can be achieved.
Indeed, intercultural communication is closely intertwined with the study of feedback
dynamics in intercultural teaching and those dynamics pertaining to interracial relation-
ships. Through intercultural instruction and practice, we can continue to problematize
and interrogate race and ethnicity as a construct, which will allow us to deepen our
understanding of race, ethnicity and interracial relations, interrogate and contemplate on
those associated intercultural issues such as prejudice, marginalization, indifference,
ethnocentrism and oppression, and promote racial harmony and racial understanding
in the university and in society as a whole.
Informed by Craig’s (1999) Rhetorical Tradition of Communication Theory and
Bitzer’s (1968) Rhetorical Situation, this study is an attempt to argue that cultural
differences between students and teachers and the prevailing intercultural and interracial
issues in classroom discourse constitute intercultural communication. The intercultural
nature of classroom teaching responds to a social exigency (e.g. conflict in beliefs and
assumptions about teaching and learning or conflict between and among teachers and
students with regard to intercultural or interracial problems) that emerges in the teaching
and learning context which requires participation in discourse as well as collective
deliberation and judgement among teachers and students.
To make this argument vivid, I conducted an empirical investigation of a foreign
teacher’s rhetorical practices which constitute her feedback dynamics in a multicultural
classroom in a private university in Singapore. I utilized classroom observation as
a grounded theory methodology framed within the interpretivist paradigm. My research
material came in the form of audio data of both teacher feedback and student responses
captured through classroom observation. In this study, I argued that classroom teaching
is an intercultural communication phenomenon, as there are differences in beliefs and
assumptions that students and teachers have about teaching and learning, and, as there
are intercultural conflicts or problems related to race, ethnicity and culture that continue
to pervade in classroom teaching.
Research questions
Intercultural teaching that consists of feedback interventions has the power to showcase
how the current scenario of intercultural problems such as ethnocentrism, marginaliza-
tion, prejudice, racism, isolationism and xenophobia can be addressed. In the classroom
incident I shared above, the perceived xenophobia of one student towards a marginalized
group of women (i.e. domestic helpers) created a social exigency in communication that
necessitated participation in discourse, collective deliberation and judgement.
This incident led me to explore how these intercultural problems are addressed by
teachers in multicultural settings through a study of rhetorical artefacts that constitute
their feedback dynamics. Observing one foreign teacher as my research participant,
I addressed two main research questions in this study.
(1) What rhetorical practices as feedback dynamic does a foreign teacher use in the
intercultural classroom?
(2) How do these rhetorical practices as feedback dynamic accomplish learning?
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 15
Methodology
As mentioned above, Anderson’s (2014) qualitative-interpretivist framework helped me
in making sense of the narrative data I gathered for this study through classroom
observation. Guided by the rhetorical perspective (Bitzer, 1968), I utilized such qualita-
tive interpretive framework in excising and analysing the rhetorical practices of Teacher
Y as my human participant. This was made possible through thematic analysis as
a grounded theory approach.
In the next sections that follow, I discussed the research participant and the research
procedures. I also discussed classroom observation as a grounded theory methodology.
I ended with a section on how I conducted a thematic analysis of narrative data.
Research participant
My research participant for this study is “Teacher Y.” She is a Filipino citizen teaching in
Singapore for almost two decades. Not being granted a citizenship, she remains a foreign
teacher in the city-state. In Singapore, a local teacher is defined as a citizen of Singapore;
a foreign teacher, on the other hand, is a teacher who is not a Singaporean, but a citizen of
another country. The socially accepted answer in defining a local teacher is that he/she
must be a Singaporean in terms of citizenship, or that he/she must be born and bred in
Singapore. This definition of a local and a foreign teacher is taken from geopolitical,
immigration and employment viewpoints (Bridges & Emerald, 2013).
Teacher Y has been teaching tourism and destination management, event manage-
ment and other tourism-related subjects in a few tertiary education institutions in
Singapore for almost 20 years. The specific scene in which I captured her rhetorical
practices was her tourism and destination management classroom. Her wide exposure
and experience working with multicultural groups have a direct impact on how she
teaches her students, and how she deals with multiculturalism and intercultural issues in
the classroom. To Teacher Y, classroom teaching is an essential part of her life and an
avenue to practise her rhetorical abilities to make a difference in the lives of her students.
Her intercultural classroom is a space that creates discourse in response to intercultural
issues as social exigencies. Her intercultural classroom is a rhetorical situation by itself
(Bitzer, 1968).
Research procedures
I chose Teacher Y because she was apropos for this study for two reasons: (1) she teaches
in a multicultural university as a foreign teacher, and (2) she interacts with students from
diverse cultural backgrounds making her classroom a rich context for social exigencies to
emerge such as intercultural problems that need attention and discussion. In a study
framed within the qualitative-interpretivist framework, observing one teacher and his/her
context is totally acceptable. The focus of a qualitative-interpretivist study is on meaning
behind the action; not meeting a sample of a population and not generalization. The focus
is to understand the participant’s subjective experiences and the truths that emerge from
those experiences (e.g. the meanings and truths about Teacher Y’s rhetorical acts that
16 N. DELANTE
constitute her feedback) (Anderson, 2014), not an objective manipulation and interpreta-
tion of data. These explain the single-person participant observation for this study.
As a standard procedure, I sought permission prior to the conduct of classroom
observation. When I was granted permission to carry on, I met Teacher Y to discuss
my intentions of the study and to seek her consent. In our discussion, I asked if I could
audio-record her lectures. She granted me permission with the condition that I also seek
her students’ consent. “What about my students? They are literally in my classroom. Are
you observing them, too?” asked Teacher Y. She was right. I also had to seek her students’
consent because they, too, are interacting members in that classroom, and their responses
to Teacher Y’s questions would be captured as well. Both Teacher Y and her students
granted me permission to sit in class.
I observed Teacher Y and her class in a period of three weeks – from end of April 2018
to second week of May 2018. I observed the class twice in a week, and one hour for each
lecture observation. I used a sophisticated recorder with the capacity to capture voice
inside a lecture theatre. To reduce social desirability and maintain the naturalness and
spontaneity of her teaching, I advised Teacher Y to ignore my presence in her lectures. To
help her achieve this aim, I chose to sit at the back of her lectures and dressed informally
to blend with the rest of the students in class. I played the role of a student and
participated in group activities.
In this study, I focused on what Teacher Y was saying – her words, her verbal
expressions, her feedback, or her language in general. Framed within the interpretivist
framework, it was meaning behind the action that I was focusing on. It was about the
meanings of Teacher Y’s rhetorical practices as feedback dynamics and how these
meanings were expanded with her students’ responses to feedback.
Classroom observation as grounded theory methodology
Observation is a qualitative research method where researchers observe participants’
ongoing behaviour in a natural situation. The researchers record what they see in
whatever way they can without any means of intervention or disruption. The goal of
naturalistic classroom observation is to generate novel ideas as it provides researchers the
opportunity to study the situation in a holistic manner which allows them to see avenues
of inquiry not thought of before (McLeod, 2015).
The classroom observation which I conducted in this study was a naturalistic
observation that was framed within Anderson’s (2014) interpretivist framework with
a focus on discursive and performative practices that are often directed towards the
participant-observation method. The participant-observation method acknowledges
the subjective and multiple meanings of human experiences where truths are
accomplished within the semiotic or symbolic domain. This framework is closely
linked to grounded theory as a qualitative research methodology. Grounded theory
methodology articulates a compelling logic of discovery, along with a set of rules
and vocabulary, that brings a sense of order to the messy process of qualitative
research (Charmaz, 2006; Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). Grounded theory celebrates
openness by enabling researchers to remove biases and doubts in the mind and
allowing categories, themes and concepts to emerge on their own (Bryant &
Charmaz, 2007; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 17
introduced grounded theory in 1967 as a general research method that allows
researchers to start without too many assumptions and work immediately with the
data which are mostly textual materials. When I was observing Teacher Y’s teaching,
I constantly reminded myself to remove my own preconceived notions and biases
about teaching. The rationale for this was for me to view classroom teaching
through the lens of Teacher Y, not mine.
Three features of grounded theory as a method of inquiry were especially important in
my analysis of qualitative data: (1) emergent theory is grounded in the relationships
between data and the categories into which they are coded, (2) categories develop
through an ongoing process of interpreting themes known as thematic analysis as well
as comparing units of data with each other, and (3) codes, categories and category
definitions or structures continue to change dynamically while the researcher is still in
the field, continuously immersed in the process with new data altering the scope and
terms of the analysis (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). With a special focus on what is happening
naturally in the field (e.g. an intercultural classroom situation), classroom observation as
a grounded theory methodology is one that follows the interpretivist outlook in viewing
and analysing human participant data.
Thematic analysis as an interpretivist framework of sensemaking
Thematic analysis is a widely used interpretivist qualitative data analysis method across
the social, behavioural and more applied (clinical, health, education, etc.) sciences. It is
a key process within the grounded theory methodology. Its main purpose is to identify
patterns of meaning across a dataset that offers an answer to the research question(s)
being addressed. Patterns are identified through a rigorous process of data familiariza-
tion, data coding, iterative reading and theme development and revision. It is an
inductive way of coding and theme development which is directed by the data, not by
the researcher (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017; The University of Auckland, 2019).
The focus of my thematic analysis was to analyse the persuasive force of messages
embedded within the transcribed audio quotes of Teacher Y captured through observa-
tion. I had to surface the intent of Teacher Y’s speech or feedback interventions in her
classroom. Onerous as it was, thematic analysis helped me shed light on the intent of
Teacher Y’s rhetorical practices that constitute her feedback dynamics in classroom
teaching. Below, I described the steps that I went through in conducting a thematic
analysis. It is important to note that these steps were not linear; rather, they were
recursive and iterative.
First, I spoke with the narrative data. I read and re-read the data to become immersed
and intimately familiar with what they were trying to tell me. Next, I conducted categor-
izing and axial coding of a huge dataset, and after that, I collated all the codes and all
relevant data extracts together for more focused stages of analysis. I also discarded
irrelevant data. Axial coding helped me to reshape the categories that emerged in order
to produce deeper meanings out of these categories. The process of integrating categories
is called axial coding – creating a new set of codes whose purpose is to make deeper
meanings or connections between categories. For instance, I created one overarching
category by integrating the categories “telling,” “using modals,” “saying that something is
important” and “emphasising necessity” into “imperatives.” When teachers use modals
18 N. DELANTE
(must, should, need to), implore their students to do what is important or ask them to do
what is necessary, one integrated theme is at work: imperatives, that is, teachers tell their
students what to do for their own welfare. In the same vein, I collapsed the low-level
categories that I had formulated (e.g. “I point of view,” “making students think,”
“collective we” and “assertions”) into a higher-level category, which I labelled as
“appeals,” another rhetorical practice that emerged. I realized that all these categories
have the intention to appeal to logic, reason, and emotion. Axial coding allowed me to
delve deeper into the data and arrive at an analysis that was trustworthy.
Third, I was persistent in searching for themes from the codes and categories that were
generated from the data. I studied the codes closely and collated the data to identify
significant broader patterns of meaning, in this case, the rhetorical practices as feedback
themes. I collated those data relevant to each candidate theme, worked closely with the
data, and reviewed how each potential theme could be a viable answer to my first research
question. Then, I reviewed the themes. I juxtaposed the candidate themes against the
dataset, to ascertain if they told a convincing story, one that addressed my research
questions. In doing so, I kept asking myself, “Is this something that answers my research
questions?” At this stage, I refined my themes by splitting them, combining them, and
discarding some irrelevant ones.
Fifth, I tried to name my themes. I kept reminding myself that these themes must
capture the rhetorical practices that constitute Teacher Y’s feedback dynamics in
intercultural classroom teaching. I wanted the themes to be neat and simple. I tried
to create verb equivalents for the themes appearing in noun forms because, as Burke
(1945) argued, rhetorical acts or rhetorical practices must be expressed in verb forms or
action verbs. In this phase, I developed a detailed analysis of each theme, working out
the scope and focus of each theme, and capturing the story of each theme in response
to my research questions. What guided me were the persistent questions I was asking
myself: “Do these themes reflect the rhetorical practices of Teacher Y that many
teachers in the world collectively share?” “Do these themes capture the feedback
dynamics of Teacher Y that teachers worldwide can relate to because they employ
them in the classroom?”
In the final phase, I started to make sense of these themes by writing up my answers to
the research questions: my own analysis. Writing about these themes was a struggle. The
more I knew about my data, the more I questioned myself as to whether I was making
sense of the data. I was moving back and forth between the different phases of my
thematic analysis while I was writing my answers to the research questions. It was
a highly recursive process. In this final phase, I had to consistently ask myself three key
questions: (1) “What is this saying?” (a question to pin down the rhetorical practice as
feedback dynamic), (2) “What does it intend to do?” (a question to pin down the
rhetorical intent), and (3) “What is it trying to accomplish?” (a question about meaning
behind the action). In asking these questions, I had to consistently remind myself that my
theoretical pursuit is to explain classroom teaching as an intercultural communication
phenomenon by understanding the rhetorical practices of a foreign teacher influenced by
the interpretivist framework (Anderson, 2014) and framed within the lens of the
Rhetorical Tradition of Communication Theory (Craig, 1999) and Rhetorical Criticism
(Bitzer, 1968).
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 19
Results
This study aimed to answer two main research questions, namely: (1) What rhetorical
practices as feedback dynamic does a foreign teacher use in the intercultural classroom?
(2) How do these rhetorical practices as feedback dynamic accomplish learning? This
chapter is dedicated to answering these questions to show that teachers’ rhetorical
practices in intercultural classroom teaching which constitute their feedback dynamics
are powerful, intentional, persuasive and they have the capacity to open or change minds
and accomplish learning.
What rhetorical practices as feedback dynamic does a foreign teacher use in
the intercultural classroom?
In this study, imperatives and appeals emerged as the rhetorical practices of Teacher Y as
a foreign teacher teaching in a multicultural classroom in Singapore. Analysing how
imperatives and appeals accomplish learning led to how Bitzer’s (1968) rhetorical situa-
tion came into the fore. In Teacher Y’s classroom, the students represented the audience
while Teacher Y acted as a rhetor interacting with the audience. Those intercultural issues
that emerged in classroom discourse represented the social exigency that enabled
a rhetorical situation to take shape. The differing views of students and teachers repre-
sented the constraints which required mediation for change in decision and action to take
place.
Imperatives as rhetorical practice
Imperatives include commands represented by modals that signify necessity and impor-
tance such as “must,” “should,” “need to” and “going to.” Imperatives emerged in my
axial coding of data comprising the categories “telling,” “using modals,” “saying that
something is important” and “emphasising necessity.” When teachers use modals (must,
should, need to), implore their students to do what is important, or ask them to do what
is necessary, one rhetorical practice is at work: imperatives, that is, telling them what to
do because it is for their own welfare. The sense of command that is captured in
imperatives is driven by the teacher’s authority in the classroom. This sense of command
constitutes her feedback dynamic.
In that trimester in April 2018, Teacher Y started her lesson by saying:
“Listen. I am showing these tourism videos of countries in Southeast Asia because they are
important. They are compiled and produced by various tourism organisations and are
professionally done by each of them. And I am giving you this written task to react to one of
those tourism videos. You need to understand what these videos want to say.” (April 30 2018,
Monday)
Teacher Y said this with one intention: to help her students understand the concept of
tourism. She displayed authority and agency by using commands such as “Listen” and
“you need to” as her linguistic instruments.
With a similar intention to help her students understand the concepts of tourism and
destination management, she was urging her students to read prescribed readings before
coming to class and reflect on these readings. Her authority as a teacher is shown in the
20 N. DELANTE
phrase “do your readings because I’m not going to read that for you.” This is illustrated in
the quote below.
“Do your readings before coming to class. Have you? I hope you have. As I mentioned, when
you come to class, please do your readings because I’m not going to read that for you.
Expectations is that you’ve done it already, okay? Do your research and apply it to your
assignment. When you read something, you ask yourself if it is applicable in your life today.
Now, if you are experiencing diculty in reading the materials, try to see me. I will be happy to
answer your questions.” (May 3 2018, Thursday)
While advising students to read, Teacher Y expressed not only empathy to those low
ability students who may be struggling in their studies but also equity. She recognized the
potential for holistic development and excellence when students are provided with
opportunities to openly discuss their learning challenges.
In the following week, Teacher Y asserted:
“Do not attend this class if you do not know the attractions in Singapore because this is what
your assignment or this subject is about. We’re going to know them, and we’re going to package
them, and we’re going to encourage the tourists to come. Don’t underestimate the size of
Singapore. I heard about a comment that Singapore is a modern but an artificial city. Yes,
almost everything in this country is made of glass and concrete. There are reasons for this. If
you are not from Singapore, it might be hard to understand, but you must learn why.” (May 7
2018, Thursday)
She said this so that her students would understand what tourist attractions mean and
what constitute tourism packages. Her sense of command is captured by the beginning
phrase “Do not attend this class if . . .” More importantly, she was trying to pinpoint
a slant of prejudice against a country, e.g. calling Singapore an artificial city. She was
encouraging her students to have an open mind and to develop cultural sensitivity to
other countries by avoiding labelling or stereotyping attitudes.
She also wanted her students to understand not only tourism packages but also safety
and security when running a destination business. Her statement below captures this.
Her modal prompts “you should” and “you need to” appear logical in telling students to
learn the basics of destination packages. These modals served as her rhetorical
instrument.
“Doing packages for a destination is not easy. When we create a destination package, it is
really important to understand that you should be working together in tandem with almost
everybody involved and responsible. You need to work with the government, with the sectors
involved. You do not promise them (tourists) a peaceful, safe trip to a conict-ridden region
when you know that, politically, it is not a safe place for tourists. However, you can do your
best to put in place security and give them a meaningful tourist experience.” (May 7 2018,
Monday)
“In this project, shall we remove those countries in the list where there’s high evidence of
armed conflict?” asked one student. “If we do that, we are missing a point in packaging
a tourism destination of a country, and that is fairness, equality and opportunity. Are we
labelling these countries as X, Y and Z? I think we should not be doing that. The world
needs to know that these countries have tourism, too; that these countries deserve
recognition of what is good and human” replied Teacher Y. Her feedback was aimed
to encourage students to eliminate those stereotyping and ethnocentric views and
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 21
attitudes that linger within the students’ schema and be more understanding of the
uniqueness and conditions of other countries and their people.
Similarly, she had the same goal of helping students learn about destination manage-
ment when she declared:
“You need to visit some of these destinations if you have time. I encourage you to travel. You
should take it upon yourselves as an initiative to go there and discover a place. Unless you’re
not well-travelled, you would not understand how destinations are run. It’s such an experience
to travel to certain countries and destinations and then you compare what you do, isn’t it? Isn’t
travel our way of deepening our experience with the world?” (May 7 2018, Monday)
Teacher Y was telling her students to explore the world for them to understand it better.
Her intent is for her students to realize that the classroom is a different scene from the
real world. What one sees or learns in the classroom may not necessarily be what he/she
learns in the outside world. To learn how the real world works, she was telling them to
explore it, to be out there in order to understand it.
One student shared, “My friends and I went to country X early this year. It was
a terrible experience . . . There were pickpockets in their transportations. We lost so much
money. This is what travel does? We are not recommending country X to our friends at
all.” In response, Teacher Y said, “I’m sorry for what happened to you and your friends.
However, let’s not consider your experience as a basis to develop hatred to this country
and its people and lobby against them. The people of country X are friendly people. I was
there a few times. For sure, there are bad elements everywhere. Therefore, when visiting
a country, you need to know some basic rules to ensure safety.” Teacher Y did not want
that particular student to develop hatred against a country and its people and spread that
hate to others. She wanted him to have an open mind and be reflective of what happened.
Her feedback was meant to help students reduce hate and an ethnocentric attitude
towards other people.
At another juncture of her lecture, Teacher Y implored:
“You need to change the mindset of people. You need to inuence them. That’s part of being in
the destination business. Say, plastic pollution, right? You need to change the mindset of people
who don’t care about the environment. If you litter a place you’re visiting, that means you’re
not respecting the country.” (May 7 2018, Monday)
Here, the concepts that she wanted her students to learn were environmental pollution,
environmental preservation and respect. She wanted them to know that the environment
is vital to tourism because it is the main capital of tourism. Teacher Y wanted her
students to heed the call to listen and understand nature so that they can do something
to sustain it. Teacher Y wanted them to have respect to other countries by emphasizing
the act of not littering places that they travel to. Because Mother Nature is already
weeping due to humanity’s harmful and irresponsible acts, Teacher Y was making
a serious call captured in the imperative sentence “you need to change the mindset of
people.”
With imperatives being reproduced in her feedback or language, Teacher Y wanted
her students to learn the concepts of authority, expertise and experience. In the statement
below, Teacher Y was telling her students one thing: she is an expert of the subject matter
(the multidimensionality of destination); therefore, she is in the right position to discuss
it with the class, and she was imploring her students to listen to her.
22 N. DELANTE
“I have been teaching for 20 years in Singapore and I like what I’m doing. I am going to discuss
it (destination is multidimensional) before I ask you to share your ideas . . . I work in the
attractions industry and I hold a key position there . . . I am from the tourism industry. I know
how it works out there . . . I know Singapore a lot as a destination because I have lived here for
20 years. I know a lot of people in the tourism industry in Singapore.” (May 10 2018,
Thursday)
In the audience, one student remarked: “And we cannot use our position or authority to
undermine others. In our discussion about organisational management, we learned to
support each other and let others grow.” In response, Teacher Y said, “That’s correct.
What is the purpose of organisational management after all? To help others develop their
full potential, right? To help them grow.” In this communicative exchange, Teacher Y did
not only want her students to learn about authority and expertise, she was also empha-
sizing that subjugation, marginalization and oppression will not bear fruits in organiza-
tions. She wanted her students to understand that a manager must inspire, not subjugate
or mute the voices of others in an organization. A manager must lead, not enslave others
for his/her own benefit.
She also wanted her students to learn the concept of multiculturalism as it is inter-
weaved in tourism destination. She said:
“I don’t work with the same people all the time. I don’t learn with the same people. I work with
dierent people. Come on, this is Singapore. It’s very multicultural. That’s how I gain
expertise.” (May 24 2018, Thursday)
One student expressed, “But sometimes, it’s hard to work with others especially when
you are coming from different cultures. It’s not easy at all.” In response, Teacher
Y argued, “But that is a given in this class. All of you are coming from different cultures
and you need to accept that you will be working in groups in this class. For sure, there
would be differences in ideas and ways of thinking and doing things, but we need to learn
to be more open and tolerant of these differences, right? It is a highly globalized village we
are living in right now.” One student supported Teacher Y by saying, “Yes, it’s true that
working as a group is difficult, but I think it matters when we try to understand others
and where they are coming from, as we also try to understand ourselves. It’s like that,
I suppose. It’s more of understanding ourselves and others around us.” Aware that
cultural conflicts emerge in a multicultural classroom, Teacher Y showed determination
in influencing her students to learn to be more accepting, tolerant and open minded.
Noteworthy is that Teacher Y was not alone; there were members in her class who shared
her beliefs about cultural differences and how intercultural problems can be dealt with in
an attempt to achieve understanding and social change.
How do imperatives as feedback dynamic accomplish learning?
To answer this question is to understand that imperatives as feedback dynamic are
reproduced in the language of Teacher Y as she teaches her students and engages them
in dialogue. This reproduction of imperatives happens as teaching is enacted naturally in
the classroom, whether or not Teacher Y or teachers, in general, are aware of these
imperatives, and whether or not they are aware of the reproduction of imperatives in
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 23
their speech. Rhetorically speaking, when imperatives are reproduced in feedback inter-
ventions, certain pedagogical intentions are conveyed.
How, then, do imperatives accomplish learning? The answer to this question is
twofold: just as students were learning the fundamental concepts and dimensions of
these concepts related to a subject, e.g. tourism and destination management, they, too,
were dealing with and were interrogating intercultural issues that arose in classroom
discourse such as perceived labelling or stereotyping, prejudice, hatred, subjugation,
marginalization, isolationist perspectives and ethnocentrism, to name a few. These are
outcomes of imperatives as a feedback dynamic which illustrate an accomplishment of
learning. In short, Teacher Y was hitting two birds with one stone, a metaphorical
illustration that captures how learning was accomplished.
The logic that resides with imperatives as a rhetorical practice which constitutes
a teacher’s feedback dynamic is that teachers, in general, tend to tell students what to
do and convey ideas to them when they feel that their students need to understand these
fundamental ideas. The principle that underpins this rhetorical practice is that teachers
want their students to expand and deepen their understanding of concepts and the
dimensions of these concepts in order to accomplish learning.
What is more fulfiling is that the practice of imperatives as feedback dynamic allows
teachers to facilitate, navigate and moderate the discussion of intercultural issues that
emerge in the classroom and leads them to participate in discourse as a way of dealing with
these intercultural issues vis-à-vis the introduction of relevant concepts in class.
Imperatives as feedback dynamic can encourage discourse to happen because of the
emergence of intercultural problems that presents a social exigence such as those issues
pertaining to prejudice, social injustice, labelling or stereotyping, perceived ethnocentrism
and the like. This affirms the position of intercultural teaching as a rhetorical situation
(Bitzer, 1968) that engages teachers and students in dialogue to achieve an open mind.
Appeals as rhetorical practice
When I collapsed the low-level categories that I had formulated (e.g. “I point of view,”
“making students think,” “collective we” and “assertions”) into a higher-level category,
one overarching theme emerged: appeals. I realized that all those categories have the
intention to appeal to logic, values and emotion making appeals as another rhetorical
practice that constitutes Teacher Y’s feedback dynamic. In Aristotle’s words, appeals are
a collective way of being persuasive in speech which move an audience through reason or
argument (logos) or by targeting the emotional state of the audience (pathos) (as cited in
Keith & Lundberg, 2008).
To appeal is to ask something or to make a request or call by targeting the logic,
emotion, values and principles of people. In teaching, the beauty of appeals lies in the fact
that students are invited to assume ownership of their learning. Appeals function as
a feedback intervention that an agent of communication utilizes to make an impact on
learning and thereby contribute to social change.
Going back to her lectures, Teacher Y remarked:
“Managing destinations is not really complicated. What complicates them are the people in the
system – political, economic pursuits. Name them . . . When this happens to you as you enter
24 N. DELANTE
the world of work, you must learn the value of impartiality in oce politics.” (May 28 2018,
Monday)
This was an invitation to develop an awareness of one’s situation, which includes both
political and economic milieus. Teacher Y was appealing to her students’ sense of
fairness, non-partisanship, and informed judgement about the socio-political and eco-
nomic issues that emerge in an environment in which they operate. If students fail to
develop this sense of awareness and understanding, they will be surprised about how
politics would intervene their business operations.
In the same vein, Teacher Y was appealing to her students’ innovative thinking by
emphasizing awareness of the natural resources available when running a tourism
destination business. She said:
“So, Singapore, being a smart DMO, realised that they don’t have the natural resources – so
they create resources because they have the money to create the infrastructure. Correct,
students? So, there are countries gifted with natural resources, but there are countries that
create their own resources. There are countries that innovate . . . ” (May 24 2018, Thursday)
Her statement triggered interest among students. One student asked, “Water is some-
thing that Singapore is dependent from its Malaysian neighbour for decades already.
Nowadays, is it true that Singapore is no longer dependent from Malaysia when it comes
to potable water?”. One classmate replied, “Still, Singapore imports water from Malaysia.
It is wrong to say that Singapore is no longer dependent from Malaysia when we talk
about water because still, one of Singapore’s water resources is an imported water from
Johore Bahru in Malaysia. It’s signed into law by both countries.” Teacher Y was thankful
for the exchange of ideas between the two students whose dialogue was focused on facts,
not hearsay. “Thank you for that answer. Let’s give credit to where credit is due,” declared
Teacher Y. The sharing and distribution of resources and opportunities by a country to
another is a humane act, one that springs from a belief that bilateral relations between
two counties matter. It embodies social justice and peaceful co-existence.
Similarly, she was appealing to embrace diversity by inviting her students to be aware
of their different cultural backgrounds where respect, tolerance and acceptance matter.
“We all have dierent backgrounds in this classroom. So, we must learn to accept and respect
each other’s cultural dierences.” (May 17 2018, Thursday)
One student stood and shared, “That’s true. In our group, we ensure that we try to listen
to each other and understand where we are all coming from. If not, we cannot work
together.” “That’s recognising and respecting diversity,” Teacher Y applauded the stu-
dent. When we respect diversity and when we find ways to enhance cultural under-
standing, we contribute to making the world a better place.
Teacher Y was also appealing to self-reflection and sense of agency illustrated in the
following quotes.
“This is a good manifestation that you are actually working as a system, not as separate
entities despite you coming from dierent ethnic backgrounds. Remember Bertalany’s sys-
tems theory? I am happy to know that you are actually putting it into action. Teamwork and
cultural sensitivity really matter.” (May 28 2018, Monday)
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 25
“This is what learning is. Learning means being open to possibilities and even cultural tensions
and trying to innovate in order to give something that is both fun and worthwhile.” (May 28
2018, Monday)
The first quote was an invitation to self-reflect by appealing to the value of teamwork
in managing an event or in running a tourism business. Here, Teacher Y was empha-
sizing unity in diversity. This is possible when people have sensitivity to other cultures.
The second quote was an appeal to the value of courage to resolve intercultural
tensions on their own. This feedback illustrates that to resolve intercultural tensions,
students must face the disruption that these tensions create, and have a sense of agency
to make a difference, rather than shut themselves down through deliberate avoidance
or denial.
In support to Teacher Y, one leader of a group shared, “When it was too difficult for us
to arrive at a decision, we tried to reflect on why we are unique as a group. We are
culturally diverse. One of us is from India, two of us are Vietnamese, one is Malaysian,
and I am from the UK. We accepted the fact that we are diverse, that we come from
different cultures, and we worked our way out to be more understanding of our ideas and
worldviews.”
Teacher Y continued to appeal to cultural sensitivity, fairness and understanding by
inviting her students to think critically about their own situations and the situations for
which other cultures are subsumed. She was appealing to her students’ sense of reason
and value judgement – that tourism has a deeper purpose and meaning which is captured
in the phrase “tourism is culture, too.” In understanding other cultures, Teacher Y was
appealing to cultural sensitivity.
“Of course, when you go out there in the world, you can see some of the buildings – they have
a story. Costumes have a story; it’s not like you just have this costume. You can see some of
these dramas or films, they’re historical, and the food, the preparation – it’s very unique and
cultural – all have stories to tell. You need to be sensitive to these stories because they have
sociocultural innuendoes. You need to understand that tourism is culture, too.” (May 24 2018,
Thursday)
Towards the end of the trimester, Teacher Y was appealing to initiative and practicality
by emphasizing the importance of applying knowledge in real-life situations. The real test
of learning is when students know how to apply theories in real-life contexts and make
sense of these theories as they connect with the world. Teacher Y wanted her students to
confront this challenge as they culminate the trimester. She postulated:
“I am proud to say that you actually solved the problems you encountered on your own. That’s
the way to go when running events in real life. I know how dicult it is to deal with problems
because of the cultural dierences in your groups, but you need to learn how to troubleshoot
any problem. And you did that. There’s no backing out. That is real life, real experience. You
need to face the tides.” (May 28 2018, Monday)
Attention to cultural diversity in class activities illustrates that diversity can also lead to
cultural tensions; however, students can find ways to agree and add on, rather than
disagree, shut themselves from others and work alone. Her message is clear: In the
globalized, multicultural classroom, shutting down from other ethnicities and cultures
is hardly possible. This isolationist behaviour must be transformed into convergence,
teamwork, acceptance, and tolerance.
26 N. DELANTE
In another instance, the students were portrayed as applying common sense to
accomplish a task. By appealing to initiative and practicality, Teacher Y was happy to
learn how her students responded to a problem on the ground.
“I like what you said that an understanding of what is happening on the ground is important
when you run events. You do not need many theories in mind to run events. Sometimes, all you
need is common sense. That’s good.” (May 28 2018, Monday)
The phrase “walking the talk” in the quote below signifies the application of knowledge or
putting it into action. In this situation, we could see how students were using practical
thinking in their approach. Also, commendable was the students’ attitude of self-
disclosure as a way of establishing trusting relationships. This is a step away from an
ethnocentric attitude, prejudice or an isolationist perspective. To open us is to show that
one is ready to embrace a highly complex, diversified world. To open up is to show that
one is willing to listen, learn, adapt and change.
“This is indeed an indication of you walking the talk. Your initiative to utilise a free commu-
nication app from App store or Android is testament that you really are serious in doing your
job as event managers in the making. Also, disclosing your idea with an external independent
company manifests that you are opening up and embracing the world. The sense of leadership
and your initiative are commendable. Carry on.” (May 28 2018, Monday).
How do appeals as feedback dynamic accomplish learning?
Similar to imperatives, appeals are reproduced in the language of Teacher Y comprising
her feedback dynamics in intercultural instruction. Appeals are reproduced as teaching is
enacted naturally in the classroom, whether or not Teacher Y is aware of them, and
whether or not she is aware of the reproduction of appeals in her speech. As a rhetorical act
and a feedback dynamic, appeals emerged as a vital constituent of intercultural teaching.
How do appeals accomplish learning? To answer this question is to go back to Teacher
Y’s feedback and the students’ responses and understand the underlying intentions
captured by those feedback exchanges. In my thematic analysis, I found that appeals
accomplish a dual goal: (1) they enable students to become autonomous and self-
directed, and (2) similar to imperatives, they make it possible for Teacher Y and her
students to interrogate intercultural issues that emerge in classroom discussion. With
sense of autonomy, students showed awareness of their own situation, reflection of their
own situation, critical thought about issues that arise in class, and application of their
knowledge to real-life situations. Pedagogically speaking, these higher-level competencies
suggest that appeals prod students to progressively move along the learning curve – from
learning the basic concepts and theories in the discipline to applying these concepts and
theories in real-life situations. Indeed, appeals coax students to direct their own sail
rather than remain in the back seat.
Interculturally speaking, appeals open a gateway for teachers and students to be
mindful of intercultural problems that emerge in classroom interaction. These might
include issues pertaining to prejudice, social injustice, unfairness, diversity, ethnocentr-
ism, mutual respect, tolerance, and cultural understanding. Appeals as feedback dynamic
can pave the way for discourse to happen because of the emergence of intercultural
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 27
problems that may constitute a social exigence requiring collective deliberation and
judgement. Appeals substantiate the role of intercultural teaching as a rhetorical situation
(Bitzer, 1968) that prevails in multicultural universities. They emerged as a vital compo-
nent for learning, understanding and social change to happen.
Theoretical implications
Classroom teaching of almost any subject in the university curricula is a crucial space for
discourse because social exigencies such as intercultural problems related to racism,
prejudice, stereotyping, subjugation, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, isolationist perspec-
tives and cultural insensitivity can emerge at any time in the classroom. In viewing
communication theory as a field, intercultural problems are considered as social exigen-
cies (Bitzer, 1968; Craig, 1999) that can emerge naturally in the multicultural classroom
and bring intercultural conflict into the fore. These social exigencies warrant participa-
tion in discourse in an attempt to resolve them and achieve tolerance and understanding.
The emergence of these social exigencies that necessitate participation in classroom
discourse makes intercultural teaching a suitable candidate for a rhetorical situation. In
this rhetorical situation, the teacher acts as a rhetor, a moderator, a facilitator and
a meaning negotiator who is in constant dialogue with students as the main audience
in the class.
Being mindful of the rhetorical situation as the ground for rhetorical criticism (Bitzer,
1968), the students, who represent the audience, have the capacity to be influenced by
discourse and be mediators of change. Teachers, on the other hand, can serve as
a rhetorical instrument in helping students to participate in meaningful discourse, in
empowering those who are perceived to be weak, fearful and voiceless, in facilitating class
initiatives that interrogate an intercultural problem, and in proposing an action based on
fairness, informed judgement, justice and empathy to the human condition. Teachers can
also encourage students to engage in rhetorical criticism approaches that foster tolerance,
cultural sensitivity, acceptance and understanding. Both teachers and students who are
participating in discourse must be able to identify and deal with ideological constraints
that curb decision or action needed to modify the social exigence and impact change.
They must be able to interrogate ideological constraints especially when these constraints
constitute the very intercultural problems that are being deliberated (e.g. misleading
views on race, ethnicity, cultural identity, gender or class).
The teacher’s feedback interventions are central to classroom teaching. The intercul-
tural nature of classroom teaching is embodied by the feedback interventions that
teachers utilize to negotiate meaning and achieve a common understanding. These
feedback interventions are captured in the rhetorical strategies that teachers utilize in
teaching. For feedback to be meaningful and successful, Kerssen-Griep and Witt (2014)
advised that teachers employ face-threat mitigating messages by using a language that
illustrates caring and concern, sensitivity to the students’ desired social image, effortful
and elaborate, tactful, explanatory and encouraging. They argued that unmitigated feed-
back messaging that includes direct impositions, strong imperatives or a commanding
tone, verbal aggressiveness and persuasive and controlling language may diminish the
students’ self-esteem, self-confidence and identity and undermine their capacity to learn.
28 N. DELANTE
However, in Teacher Y’s classroom, imperatives emerged as a rhetorical dynamic that
propelled intercultural teaching in accomplishing two goals: (1) they enabled students to
learn the fundamental concepts in tourism and destination management, and (2) they
encouraged students in dealing with or in interrogating intercultural issues that emerged
in classroom discourse such as perceived labelling or stereotyping, prejudice, subjuga-
tion, marginalization and ethnocentrism, to name a few. In this particular study, direct
imperative statements did not emerge as a force that diminished the students’ capacity to
participate in discourse and accomplish learning. Rather, these imperative statements
were hitting two birds with one stone, a metaphorical illustration that captures how
learning was accomplished. Imperatives as a rhetorical practice add on to the knowledge
of feedback as communication dynamic in intercultural teaching. Teachers, in general,
embody the improvability of practice and informed judgement (Craig, 1999) because
teachers possess the ability of language, that of imperatives as feedback dynamic that
helps in accomplishing learning and in achieving success. Perhaps, what this study can
offer is to further explore the nature, relevance and impact of imperatives as a feedback
dynamic in intercultural teaching. Exploring this specific feedback dynamic that forms
part of the teacher’s language interventions will somehow help in reducing the negative
perception and a feeling of discomfort that scholars, particularly those in language and
linguistics including English teachers, associate with imperatives.
Pedagogical implications
In an attempt to inform instructional practice, this study offers teachers the opportunity
to explore the power and meaning of imperatives in classroom dialogues. Pragmatically,
they can interrogate the nature of imperatives as feedback dynamic considering that in
communication education and language scholarship, imperatives (e.g. commands) are
viewed as an impediment to learning as they are perceived to diminish students’
motivation and capacity to learn. Imperatives are viewed as having a commanding and
didactic tone whereby teachers using this feedback dynamic are perceived to be in
a powerful and privileged position; thus, students tend to passively receive teachers’
ideas as a way of avoiding conflict, subtle resignation and saving face. When can
imperatives appear uncomfortable in teaching? In what classroom situations and for
what rationale do teachers need to set aside (or advance) the utilization of imperatives?
These are questions that teachers can reflect on as they navigate imperatives in inter-
cultural teaching.
In the same vein, teachers can also explore the impact that appeals have in terms of
enacting knowledge and in dealing with intercultural issues in class. When do appeals to
emotion, values and reason as a rhetorical practice become most effective? When are they
less effective? In what conditions or situations should appeals be utilized in intercultural
teaching? These are important questions because there are non-advocates of rhetoric who
negate the power and relevance of appeals in promoting authentic and meaningful
dialogue. These non-believers of rhetoric advance the idea that rhetoric (e.g. an appeal
to emotion) possesses a dark, manipulative power that only serves the interests and
agenda of a privileged few and silences the voices of others (see Campbell et al., 2015).
Psychologists, for instance, argue that appeals to the emotional state of individuals
(pathos) as a rhetorical device lack good empirical evidence that proves that its persuasive
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 29
ability actually works as intended. In the same vein, social scientists may consider appeals
as a rhetorical artefact that overemphasizes human agency and credibility over systemic
procedures and established social structures (see Craig, 1999).
Intercultural teaching is not without challenges such as the presence of intercultural
problems that are difficult, sensitive and uncomfortable to handle. These include those
issues related to racism, ostracism, marginalization, stereotyping, oppression, prejudice
and ethnocentrism in classroom discourse that can magnify with the existence of
ideological differences that exist between White people and people of colour.
Confronted with these intercultural problems, teachers can adapt key teaching strategies
that Cargile (2010) proposed: adding without contradiction and granting freedom for
conclusion. Adding without contradiction represents the idea that opposing to some-
one’s point of view does not forcibly lead to negation, indifference or unacceptance; that
two opposing forces can coexist without mutual exclusion or the dominance of polarizing
views. In classroom dialogues, students can be encouraged to add ideas without contra-
diction by adopting the habit of using “and” instead of “but” in their speech. Cargile
(2010) posited that “and” interjects a subjectivist epistemology into the dialogue by
creating plural yet meaningful realities for the immigrant experience and reducing
divisive views. If teachers can genuinely inform students that every individual in class
is coming from multiple realities, then accomplishing fairness and understanding is not
going to be elusive.
Framed in terms of nondualism, nonbinaries and a stance of non-judgement, granting
freedom for conclusions suggests that facilitating judgemental views can be more effec-
tive and meaningful when individuals are received for who they are and are accepted
where they are coming from. Teachers can open up classroom conversations about
sensitive and difficult topics such as racism, marginalization, prejudice and ethnocentr-
ism when a non-judgemental stance to facilitating interracial dialogues is embodied in
feedback dynamics and made more explicit in classroom teaching. By being mindful of
these teaching strategies, some students’ dysfunctional habits (e.g. a racist attitude) can be
interrogated to enrich capacity for dialogue. When no one is judged and when no race is
ostracized, students will self-disclose, expand their worldviews, open themselves to
criticism, commit to fair judgement, and learn the essence of respect and acceptance.
As intercultural problems continue to emerge in classroom teaching such as those
difficult issues related to racism, prejudice, stereotyping, marginalization, oppression,
isolationist views, inequality and ethnocentric attitudes, teachers can embody the role
of being a moderator, facilitator, mediator and conflict negotiator in classroom
dynamics where intercultural tensions arise. The embodiment of these roles will
foster more open and constructive intercultural dialogues in classroom situations.
In embodying these roles, teachers can target the importance of student narratives
and experiences and their multiple viewpoints in shaping intercultural dialogues and
in arriving at a more nuanced understanding of intercultural issues such as those that
relate to ethnicity and race. They can explore salient strategies such as focus group
discussions as an interpersonal sharing of ideas to bring into the fore those inter-
cultural tensions or problems and to open up discourse in an attempt to arrive at
a collective construction of conceptual definitions, informed judgement and com-
munal action. In the globalized, multicultural classroom, teachers must be aware of
their pedagogical positions and roles, which is driven by the rhetorical intent to open
30 N. DELANTE
the minds of their students, to help correct their seemingly flawed perceptions about
others and their cultures, and to influence them to make informed decisions and take
collective action for the betterment of their lives, the lives of others and the world.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Nimrod Delante is a Doctor of Communication and is currently lecturing in Singapore.
ORCID
Nimrod Delante http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5288-9388
References
Agius, E., & Ambrosewicz, A. (2003). Towards a culture of tolerance and peace. International
Bureau for Children’s Rights. http://www.ibcr.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Towards-a-cul
ture-of-tolerance-and-peace-1.pdf
Alexander, A., & Liu, M. (2018). “Be the change you want to see”: A three-part semester-long
assignment in an interracial communication class. Communication Teacher, 32(4), 225–230.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2017.1372789
Anderson, J. A. (2014). Thinking qualitatively: Hermeneutics in science. In D. W. Stacks &
M. B. Salwen (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (2nd ed.,
pp. 54–72). Routledge.
Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1(1), 1–14. http://www.arts.
uwaterloo.ca/~raha/309CWeb/Bitzer(1968).pdf
Brandt, J. (2007). Understanding and dismantling racism: The twenty-first century challenge to
white America. Fortress Press.
Bridges, S., & Emerald, E. (2013). Intersecting global and local: The intercultural and intersubjec-
tive constructions of “ex patriate” and “local” teachers in the search for the “X factor”.
Pedagogies: An International Journal, 8(4), 316–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2013.
827841
Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (2007). The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Sage Publications.
Burke, K. (1945). A grammar of motives. Prentice Hall.
Campbell, K. K., Huxman, S. S., & Burkholder, T. R. (2015). The rhetorical act: Thinking, speaking
and writing critically. Cengage Learning.
Cargile, A. C. (2010). Adding without contradiction: The challenge of opening up interracial
dialogue. The Educational Forum, 74(2), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131721003604470
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
Sage Publications.
Chen, Y. W., & Lawless, B. (2018). Rethinking “difficult” conversations in communication
instruction from an intercultural lens: Pedagogical strategies for “SWAP-ping” the commu-
nication classroom. Communication Studies, 69(4), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.
2018.1472117
Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119–161.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00166.x
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 31
Dong, Q., Day, K. D., & Collaço, C. M. (2008). Overcoming ethnocentrism through developing
intercultural communication sensitivity and multiculturalism. Human Communication, 11(1),
27–38. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.494.1553&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Foss, K. A. (2012). Rhetorical theory. SAGE. Reference Online https://edge.sagepub.com/system/
files/77593_16.2ref.pdf
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Aldine Transaction Publishers.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Blackwell.
Haiming, C. (2019, June 10). Cultural tolerance key to social harmony. China Daily. http://europe.
chinadaily.com.cn/a/201906/10/WS5cfd9107a310176577230235.html
Halualani, R. T. (2000). Rethinking ethnicity as structural–cultural project(s): Notes on the inter-
face between cultural studies and intercultural communication. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 24(5), 579–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(00)00018-3
Halualani, R. T., Mendoza, S. L., & Drzewiecka, J. A. (2002). Moving the discourse on identities in
intercultural communication: Structure, culture, and resignifications. Communication
Quarterly, 50(3–4), 312–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370209385666
Harris, T. M. (2003). Impacting student perceptions of and attitudes toward race in the interracial
communication course. Communication Education, 52(3–4), 311–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0363452032000156271
Harris, T. M. (2018). Interracial communication: A global phenomenon in diverse socio-political
contexts. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research: Interracial Communications:
A Global Phenomenon in Diverse Socio-Political Contexts, 47(4), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.
1080/17475759.2018.1484380
Keith, W. M., & Lundberg, C. O. (2008). The essential guide to rhetoric. Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Kerssen-Griep, J., & Witt, P. L. (2012). Instructional feedback II: How do instructor immediacy
cues and facework tactics interact to predict student motivation and fairness perceptions?
Communication Studies, 63(4), 498–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2011.632660
Kerssen-Griep, J., & Witt, P. L. (2014). Instructional feedback III: How do instructor facework
tactics and immediacy cues interact to predict student perceptions of being mentored?
Communication Education, 64(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.978797
Kohlhaas, J. M. (2015). Teaching philosophy. Academia. https://www.academia.edu/6293861/
Teaching_Philosophy
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods. Sage
Publications.
Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for
learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, 8(3), 33511–33514. https://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/viewFile/335/553
Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (1999). Thinking dialectically about culture and communication.
Communication Theory, 9(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00160.x
McLeod, S. (2015, June 6). Observation methods. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychol
ogy.org/observation.html
Rizal, H., Jeng, D. J., & Chang, H. H. (2016). The role of ethnicity in domestic intercultural service
encounters. Service Business, 10(2), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-015-0267-0
Roux, J. L. (2001). Social dynamics of the multicultural classroom. Intercultural Education, 12(3),
273–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980120087480
Schouten, B. C., Meeuwesen, L., Tromp, F., & Harmsen, H. A. M. (2007). Cultural diversity in
patient participation: The influence of patients’ characteristics and doctors’ communicative
behaviour. Patient Education and Counselling, 67(1), 214–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.
2007.03.018
Sharma, P., & Wu, Z. (2015). Consumer ethnocentrism vs. intercultural competence as moderators
in intercultural service encounters. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(2), 93–102. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JSM-12-2013-0330
32 N. DELANTE
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Sage Publications.
Tamam, E., & Krauss, S. E. (2017). Ethnic-related diversity engagement differences in intercultural
sensitivity among Malaysian undergraduate students. International Journal of Adolescence and
Youth, 22(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2014.881295
The University of Auckland. (2019). About thematic analysis. School of Psychology University of
Auckland. https://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/our-research/researchgroups/thematic-
analysis/about-thematic-analysis.html
Thompson, B., Rudick, C. K., Kerssen-Griep, J., & Golsan, K. (2018). Navigating instructional
dialectics: Empirical exploration of paradox in teaching. Communication Education, 67(1),
7–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2017.1388527
Witt, P. L., & Kerssen-Griep, J. (2010). Instructional feedback I: The interaction of facework and
immediacy on students’ perceptions of instructor credibility. Communication Education, 60(1),
75–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2010.507820
Wright, S., & Lander, D. (2003). Collaborative group interactions of students from two ethnic
backgrounds. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(3), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.
1080/0729436032000145121
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 33
