Bridging Cultures: A Japanese Student’s Path to Intercultural Communication

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article offers a compelling case study of a Japanese university student’s journey toward developing intercultural communicative competence (ICC) through both formal education and informal experiences. Anchored in a mixed-method, longitudinal design, the study seeks to explore how a student, referred to as Ken, advances his language skills and cultural understanding over two years. The subject matter is timely and relevant, particularly given Japan’s ongoing efforts to internationalize higher education. While the article contributes valuable insights into the role of experiential learning in language development, several areas limit its scholarly completeness and overall coherence. One of the primary shortcomings lies in the abstract, which, although informative, lacks the specificity needed to fully convey the study’s depth. The abstract omits the clearly stated research questions and provides only vague references to methods and results. Terminology such as “multimodal approach” is not clarified, and the results section lacks concrete indicators of the participant’s development. A more data-driven summary would better communicate the study’s impact and relevance, particularly for academic and policy audiences. The literature review reflects an impressive breadth of sources and theoretical frameworks, yet it misses the opportunity to critically synthesize these perspectives. While foundational models of ICC, such as those by Deardorff, Chen and Starosta, and Mezirow, are referenced, the integration between them remains superficial. The review would benefit from a more nuanced discussion of how these models intersect and where they might fall short in the Japanese context. Moreover, there is minimal discussion of the gaps or contradictions in existing literature, which weakens the rationale for the current study’s significance. In terms of methodology, the paper outlines a rich mixed-methods design involving surveys, interviews, journals, and TOEIC test scores. However, critical methodological details are missing. There is no discussion of ethical considerations, participant consent, or how reliability and validity were ensured—particularly relevant given the translation of instruments into Japanese. Although the focus on a single participant is justified by his unique background, the paper lacks transparency about the criteria used to select him over others in the cohort. Furthermore, the justification for focusing on only three of the five Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS) categories is underdeveloped and leaves the reader wondering whether important dimensions of ICC were overlooked. The findings are engaging and clearly demonstrate the evolution of Ken’s engagement, enjoyment, and confidence in intercultural communication. Yet, the analysis is more descriptive than interpretive. While Ken’s journal entries and interview excerpts provide rich narrative data, the study stops short of deeply connecting these reflections to the theoretical models presented earlier. Additionally, the paper could be strengthened by incorporating comparative insights from the other ten participants in the study. Doing so would not only add depth but also allow for greater generalizability and critical reflection on the uniqueness of Ken’s trajectory. The discussion attempts to tie findings to broader themes in language education and ICC, but it lacks a strong analytical framework. Key themes—such as the tension between formal instruction and real-world communication—are revisited, but not sufficiently developed or problematized. Alternative explanations for Ken’s development, such as personal motivation or pre-existing intercultural exposure, are not critically examined. Moreover, the study does not acknowledge its own limitations, such as potential biases in self-reported data or the challenge of generalizing from a single case study. In the conclusion, the authors reiterate the significance of experiential learning and advocate for more authentic intercultural engagements in university education. However, the conclusion largely restates earlier points and misses the opportunity to offer actionable recommendations or a clear synthesis of how the research questions were answered. While Ken’s journey is insightful, the paper ends without distilling his experience into broader implications that educators, administrators, or policymakers could apply. Future directions for research are vaguely suggested but not substantively outlined. Despite these shortcomings, the article offers an important reminder of the limitations of test-driven language instruction and the potential of immersive, informal learning environments to cultivate meaningful intercultural growth. Ken’s transformation—from a hesitant learner to a confident user of English in both domestic and international contexts—is well documented and inspiring. The study provides a vivid illustration of how ICC can be nurtured through lived experience, interpersonal engagement, and reflective practice. However, to reach its full potential as a scholarly contribution, the article needs greater methodological clarity, theoretical integration, and critical depth. With revisions that address these gaps, this work could offer a stronger foundation for rethinking how language and intercultural competence are developed in contemporary Japanese higher education.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article offers a compelling case study of a Japanese university student’s journey toward developing intercultural communicative competence (ICC) through both formal education and informal experiences. Anchored in a mixed-method, longitudinal design, the study seeks to explore how a student, referred to as Ken, advances his language skills and cultural understanding over two years. The subject matter is timely and relevant, particularly given Japan’s ongoing efforts to internationalize higher education. While the article contributes valuable insights into the role of experiential learning in language development, several areas limit its scholarly completeness and overall coherence. One of the primary shortcomings lies in the abstract, which, although informative, lacks the specificity needed to fully convey the study’s depth. The abstract omits the clearly stated research questions and provides only vague references to methods and results. Terminology such as “multimodal approach” is not clarified, and the results section lacks concrete indicators of the participant’s development. A more data-driven summary would better communicate the study’s impact and relevance, particularly for academic and policy audiences. The literature review reflects an impressive breadth of sources and theoretical frameworks, yet it misses the opportunity to critically synthesize these perspectives. While foundational models of ICC, such as those by Deardorff, Chen and Starosta, and Mezirow, are referenced, the integration between them remains superficial. The review would benefit from a more nuanced discussion of how these models intersect and where they might fall short in the Japanese context. Moreover, there is minimal discussion of the gaps or contradictions in existing literature, which weakens the rationale for the current study’s significance. In terms of methodology, the paper outlines a rich mixed-methods design involving surveys, interviews, journals, and TOEIC test scores. However, critical methodological details are missing. There is no discussion of ethical considerations, participant consent, or how reliability and validity were ensured—particularly relevant given the translation of instruments into Japanese. Although the focus on a single participant is justified by his unique background, the paper lacks transparency about the criteria used to select him over others in the cohort. Furthermore, the justification for focusing on only three of the five Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS) categories is underdeveloped and leaves the reader wondering whether important dimensions of ICC were overlooked. The findings are engaging and clearly demonstrate the evolution of Ken’s engagement, enjoyment, and confidence in intercultural communication. Yet, the analysis is more descriptive than interpretive. While Ken’s journal entries and interview excerpts provide rich narrative data, the study stops short of deeply connecting these reflections to the theoretical models presented earlier. Additionally, the paper could be strengthened by incorporating comparative insights from the other ten participants in the study. Doing so would not only add depth but also allow for greater generalizability and critical reflection on the uniqueness of Ken’s trajectory. The discussion attempts to tie findings to broader themes in language education and ICC, but it lacks a strong analytical framework. Key themes—such as the tension between formal instruction and real-world communication—are revisited, but not sufficiently developed or problematized. Alternative explanations for Ken’s development, such as personal motivation or pre-existing intercultural exposure, are not critically examined. Moreover, the study does not acknowledge its own limitations, such as potential biases in self-reported data or the challenge of generalizing from a single case study. In the conclusion, the authors reiterate the significance of experiential learning and advocate for more authentic intercultural engagements in university education. However, the conclusion largely restates earlier points and misses the opportunity to offer actionable recommendations or a clear synthesis of how the research questions were answered. While Ken’s journey is insightful, the paper ends without distilling his experience into broader implications that educators, administrators, or policymakers could apply. Future directions for research are vaguely suggested but not substantively outlined. Despite these shortcomings, the article offers an important reminder of the limitations of test-driven language instruction and the potential of immersive, informal learning environments to cultivate meaningful intercultural growth. Ken’s transformation—from a hesitant learner to a confident user of English in both domestic and international contexts—is well documented and inspiring. The study provides a vivid illustration of how ICC can be nurtured through lived experience, interpersonal engagement, and reflective practice. However, to reach its full potential as a scholarly contribution, the article needs greater methodological clarity, theoretical integration, and critical depth. With revisions that address these gaps, this work could offer a stronger foundation for rethinking how language and intercultural competence are developed in contemporary Japanese higher education.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

SEE FILE ATTACHED

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version looks good.

Author Response

No comments were received.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for your hard work on this! Your analysis looks much clearer and more comprehensive to me now.

Given that the study abroad experience was in Australia, more emphasis on Australia and international students acculturation processes and intercultural communication development in such a context should be given.

 

I couldn't find the D'Orazzi, M. (2020) reference. Do you mean one of the three listed below?

https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/IJLCLE/article/view/31151 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17475759.2025.2462099

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07294360.2023.2193725

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx