An updated version of this rubric with a more legible font can be downloaded through the website of the American Association of Colleges and Universities.

This webinar, presented on 11/06/2024 by Dr. Leslie Bozeman and Dr. Aletha Stahl, addresses understandings of knowledge of cultural worldview frameworks, provides recommendations for activities that develop this knowledge, and proposes relevant assessments. 

This tool measures the following constructs. CQ Knowledge aligns with knowledge of cultural worldview frameworks. The tool costs money, but there is a link to an article with some questions here, and you may also find shorter, adapted versions on the Internet. 

• CQ Drive (Motivational CQ): the level of a person’s interest, persistence, and confidence to function in culturally diverse settings.
• CQ Knowledge (Cognitive CQ): the level of a person’s understanding about how cultures are similar and how they are different.
• CQ Strategy (Meta-cognitive CQ): the degree to which a person plans for, remains aware during, and checks after multicultural interactions.
• CQ Action (Behavioral CQ): the extent of a person’s flexibility and appropriate use of a broad repertoire of behaviors and skills during multicultural encounters.

This tool was built from a combination of the AAC&U Global Learning VALUE Rubric and the former IUPUI International Learning Goals. It's an excellent example of bringing knowledge of cultural worldview frameworks into a tool that can be leveraged for specific institutional context. 

This proprietary self-report tool is a validated instrument that measures several dimensions that intersect with knowledge of cultural worldview frameworks: exploration, global mindset, and relationship interest. It can be used both formatively (comes with a development plan) and summatively, including as a pre-/post-test. 

This short matching quiz can serve as a formative assessment to help learners consider how behaviors align with values in different worldviews.

This may seem like an unusual inclusion for assessing knowledge of cultural worldview frameworks, but this self-study rubric is designed to help organizations, institutions, and individuals advance just, fair, and conscientious global exchange, learning, and service partnerships. In so doing, they must necessarily take stock of multiple worldviews. 

This simulation works well as long as there is an option for a few participants to play the role of observer. We suggest that you read Notes. 

This activity is short and can also be used as an icebreaker for small groups.

To include users of all abilities, this activity could be done by asking learners to jot down their idea of a house and to include all senses. Debriefing questions could be adjusted accordingly.

This is an excellent self-assessment tool for preparing people for an immersion experience in a new cultural context. 

This is an excellent formative assessment and a go-to for developing both knowledge of cultural worldview frameworks and cultural self-awareness. Although designed for students on cultural immersion programs, it has proven useful for adult learners in multiple settings.

If you wish to shorten this activity, summarize the podcast for learners.

This activity can be done as either a discussion (see Lesson Plan) or a simulation (see Downloads). It may be particularly useful in generating discussions of cultural humility when learners desire to help or aid cultural groups different from their own. 

The scenarios in this activity can be re-imagined to target different audiences. 

It's obvious, but learners bring varying mindsets (e.g., polarization vs. minimization), attitudes, and experiences. To support their intercultural growth requires more than knowledge dissemination (e.g., lectures) and instead more experiential, transformational, constructivist pedagogies/andragogies. This table offers a series of continua to help you reflect on your classroom practices. 

This activity (also in the HubICL, but quicker to access through this link) is great for helping students learn cultural values concepts such as monochronic vs. polychronic time orientation, individualism vs. collectivism, directness vs. indirectness, etc., and identify their own values, including the fact that they likely already adapt according to context. It's set up for use in study abroad but works just as well as a self-awareness activity for discussion with a partner or in small groups. 

When the HubICL was created, there was a debate as to whether it should be a library (collect as much as possible) or a museum (curate the best). It has morphed into both.

1. To locate activities and assessments: Go to Digital Toolbox in the drop-down menu under Discover at the top..
2. "Museum": Activities with lesson plans (clickable little book icon on the right of an activity). 
3. Searching for an activity (left side in Digital Toolbox): You don't have to click every parameter. I usually ignore all except the AAC&U Rubric Outcomes and cost.
4. Click "Clear filter" -- toward the bottom on the left side menu-- after every search.
5. For DEI, emotional resilience, and teamwork activities: Click "Advanced Search" (left side menu in Digital Toolbox), then "Theoretical Frameworks" (top middle) and scroll down. 
6. Contribute! Your reviews, activities, etc., are welcome. Feel free to ask me for a quick walk-through if you want to add anything.

One rubric follows the "what/so what/now what" model of critical reflection (google for info). The other is more general. Important is teaching critical reflection to help students make sense of their experiences. 

Formative assessments developed using the definitions and descriptions of each component identified on the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) VALUE Rubrics for each construct. Can also be used as indirect measures of student learning by collecting data in retro-pre/post mode. 

Each assessment uses Bloom's Affective Domain in a 6-point Likert type scale to assess student and program outcomes.

See My Plan for Intercultural Growth for a way of using the ASKS survey as a tool for students to determine and direct their own growth in one area.

Go to "Downloads" for a classroom version that is ready to use and doesn't require access to the book where the original version was published.

Dr. Jenn Simms, Assistant Professor of Sociology and author of Mixed-Race in the US and UK: Comparing the Past, Present, and Future, in conversation with Twitter followers points to White Fragility as a useful and necessary starting point for many white students, who are by and large racially illiterate, before they're able to "appreciate and understand more critical and structural works."

Several months after the killing of George Floyd, Resmaa Menakem, who offers trauma-based therapy in Minneapolis and authored My Grandmother’s Hands: Racialized Trauma and the Pathway to Mending Our Hearts and Bodies, and Robin DiAngelo discuss everything from willful white ignorance and virtue signaling to "repair" and the world they wish to live in. 

CBS This Morning. (2020, June 5). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dteOQPzc_so

PBS News Hour. (2020, July 8). https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-anti-racism-is-a-treatment-for-the-cancer-of-racism

Bergner, D. (2020, July 15). 'White Fragility' Is Everywhere. But Does Antiracism Training Work? The New York Times Magazine.

Daniel Bergner points to the surge of attention given to Robin DiAngelo and her book in the wake of the protests of the killing of George Floyd and considers the effectiveness or lack thereof of antiracist workshops.

McWhorter, J. (2020, July 15). The Dehumanizing Condescension of White Fragility. The Atlantic. 

John McWhorter argues that DiAngelo's book is both designed "to make certain educated white readers feel better about themselves" and entails "dehumanizing condescension toward Black people." 

Jackson, L.M.  (2019, September 05). "White Fragility" Has a Whiteness Problem. Slate Magazine. September 05, 2019. 

Lauren Michele Jackson points out that DiAngelo's white fragility remains "enthralled by whiteness" whereas there also needs to be a focus towards others and towards next steps. 

DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it's so hard for white people to talk about racism. Beacon Press. 

To cite the Beacon Press blurb (linked above) about this New York Times best-seller: "In this 'vital, necessary, and beautiful book' (Michael Eric Dyson), antiracist educator Robin DiAngelo deftly illuminates the phenomenon of white fragility and 'allows us to understand racism as a practice not restricted to ‘bad people’' (Claudia Rankine). Referring to the defensive moves that white people make when challenged racially, white fragility is characterized by emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and by behaviors including argumentation and silence. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium and prevent any meaningful cross-racial dialogue. In this in-depth exploration, DiAngelo examines how white fragility develops, how it protects racial inequality, and what we can do to engage more constructively."

The Beacon Press website also includes several reading/discussion guides and a quiz to see if you exhibit white fragility.

Garrett-Rucks, P. (2016). Fostering Intercultural Competence With Standards-Based Instruction. In Intercultural competence in instructed language learning: Bridging theory and practice, 61-81.

Ebook available through Purdue Libraries.

Deardorff, D. K. (2009). The Sage handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 264-269. 

Additionally, the Table of Contents points to important readings worth pursuing, including conceptualizations emerging from specific language communities, and I recommend skimming anything available from Chapter 1 to get some of the breadth and challenges involved in conceptualizing intercultural competence (see Amazon link). 

Hammer, M. R. (2012). “The Intercultural Development Inventory: A new frontier in assessment and development of intercultural competence.” In M. Vande Berg, R. M. Paige & K. H. Lou (Eds.), Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they're not, and what we can do about it (115-136). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Excerpt from Martin, J.N. and T.K. Nakayama (2010). Intercultural Communication in Contexts. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.