EFL learners’ intercultural competence in the

advent of globalization: A short paper study

Baihaqi Zakaria Muslim

Universitas Islam Jember

 EFL learners’ intercultural competence in the advent of
globalization: A short paper study
Baihaqi Zakaria Muslim
Universitas Islam Jember

Introduction
The driving wave of globalization and multiculturalism has caused geopolitical and
societal shifts (Hong & Cheon, 2017), and as a consequence, communities around the globe
are becoming increasingly cosmopolitan as culturally diverse citizens live together. Scholars
(Eriksen, 2018; Sercu, 2010) have characterized individuals who function smoothly in these
culturally pluralistic contexts as effective interculturalists with high levels of intercultural
competence (IC). The stated goals of governmental and educational organizations that strive
to develop informed and well-informed people have frequently included IC as a vital
indication of interculturalism in globalized environments (Barrett, 2013).

Intercultural Competence
The concept of IC is often interchanged with global citizenship, transnational
competence, cross-cultural skills, multicultural competence, intercultural communication
competence, and cultural intelligence (Fantini, 2009). To characterize this concept in various
contexts, several models have been constructed. such as Bennett’s (2013) Developmental
Model of Intercultural Sensitivity as well as Intercultural Development Continuum by
Hammer (2012), which describe the several phases of the intercultural competence
acquisition. One concern with these models is the assumed linearity of movement, and some
scholars have argued that intercultural sensitivity might be better described in more nonlinear
ways (Bennett, 2017). As such, we took Chen and Starosta’s (1999) perspective by viewing it
as a multi-layered construct consisting of three interrelated aspects: intercultural sensitivity
(affective aspect), intercultural awareness (cognitive aspect) and intercultural adroitness
(behavioral aspect) (Chen & Starosta, 1999). Specifically, intercultural sensitivity refers to
the willingness to know and appreciate cultural differences in intercultural contexts;
intercultural awareness refers to the understanding of cultural practices that influence how
individuals interpret and behave; and intercultural adroitness refers to the skills needed for
individuals to perform effectively during intercultural interactions. Alternative models have
also been developed in an effort to emphasize the necessity of developing IC. For example, in
Deardorff’s (2006) developmental model, IC was defined as “the ability to communicate
effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural
knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (p. 194). Similarly, in models by Howard-Hamilton,
Richardson, and Shuford, (1998) and Byram, Gribkova, and Starkey, (2002), the essential
constituent elements of IC were recognized as attitudes (respect, openness, curiosity,
discovery), knowledge (cultural self-awareness, culture-specific knowledge, sociolinguistic
awareness, grasp of global issues and trends) and skills (listening, observing, evaluating,
analyzing, interpreting and relating, critical thinking). A three- faceted conceptualization of
IC was adopted for the current review, which defines IC as the competence to function
flexibly and comfortably in culturally different circumstances on the strength of one’s
knowledge and understanding of one’s own culture and that of others (cognitive facet),
attitude toward cultural learning and intercultural differences (affective facet), and skills for
coping with different cultures effectively (behavioral facet).

Intercultural Competence in Various Dimensions

Since the advent of globalization, intercultural encounters have inevitably occurred in
various contexts, including workplaces (Elo, Benjowsky, & Nummela, 2015; Tuleja, 2014),
school settings (Cushner, 2015; Nastasi, 2017; Parkhouse, Tichnor-Wagner, Cain, & Glazier,
2016), tourist sites (Lam & Singh, 2018; Tam, Sharma, & Kim, 2017) and so forth. In
workplaces with multicultural teams, IC contributes to team effectiveness that is promoted by
cohesion, trust and commitment (Matveev & Milter, 2004; Zimmermann, 2010). In school
settings, IC is a facilitator for language learners to develop linguistic proficiency in the target
language (Hismanoglu, 2011), which supports the view that linguistic competence cannot be
isolated from IC (Suntharesan, 2013).
Barrett, Huber, and Reynolds, (2014) stressed that individuals with good IC will not
only be able to function effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations, but also have
the potential to act as “mediators” among culturally different people by interpreting and
explaining different worldviews. Nonetheless, research indicates that many adult students do
not have the requisite intercultural skills (e.g., Bai, 2016; Cushner, 2015; Peng, Wu, & Fan,
2015; Yarosh, Lukic, & Santibáñez-Gruber, 2018). A lack of IC leads to prejudice,
discrimination and unfriendly speech, which are directly related to misunderstandings among
people of different cultural backgrounds and affiliations (Barrett, 2011). This potential
negative consequence of a lack of IC has prompted researchers’ and educators’ interest in
understanding how to promote IC. A wide range of practices have been implemented to
improve IC among people of diverse identities and role responsibilities, including
intercultural training (Känninen, 2014; Santerini, 2010), international trips (Santoro, 2014),
professional development programs (DeJaeghere & Cao, 2009; Teräs & Lasonen, 2013),
study-abroad programs (Kasmer & Billings, 2017; Ramirez, 2016), culturally diverse group
work (Arshavskaya, 2018; Brendel, Aksit, Aksit, & Schrüfer, 2016; Jin, 2015) and civic
engagement experiences (Shah-Gordon, 2016). However, the examination of various
practices reveals a hybrid picture based on different samples in different settings. A holistic
understanding of the quality and outcomes of these approaches is necessary to provide
researchers and educational practitioners with further insight.

Intercultural Competence in Educational Sectors

Despite many ways to meet the goal of developing intercultural intelligence, including
formal education and training, experiential learning is key to increase IC (Thomas & Inkson,
2005). The experiential learning theory (ELT, Kolb, 1984) emphasizes that experience forms
the foundation for learning in two fundamental processes, “grasping the experience” and
“transforming the experience”. Learning is conceptualized as “the process whereby
knowledge is created through the transformation of experience, [and] knowledge results from
the combination of grasping and transforming experience (Kolb, 1984, p. 41). ELT views
learning as a holistic process through integrated functioning of the organism—thinking,
feeling, perceiving, and behaving. The holistic nature of ELT fits well with the complexity of
IC intervention design, given that learners are exposed to, and required to manage a multitude
of demands when they are placed in the intervention. Li, Mobley, and Kelly, (2013)
empirically verified the relationship between experiential learning theory and cultural
intelligence with the finding that international experience contributes to the development of
cultural intelligence.
In the context of language education, Dervin (2010) conducted a critical review of
interpretations and assessment of IC on interculturality and suggested that such tools as
discourse analysis or dialogism could be used to supplement existing formative approaches so
as to ensure that IC could also be assessed summatively. Matsumoto and Hwang (2013)
reviewed and evaluated existing self-reported instruments that measure IC, while three out of
ten scales were found to be best eligible for their good content validity, construct validity and
ecological validity. With a focus on higher education, Griffith et al.s’ (2016) review of
current conceptualizations and measurement tools of IC revealed the lack of clarity of the
definition of this construct, and the over-dependence on self-report measurements. In a more
recent study, Tuncel and Aricioglu (2018) found that the intercultural sensitivity of senior
students was higher than that of freshmen, sophomore and junior students and concluded that
students’ intercultural sensitivity increases as they moved into senior grade levels.
Intercultural development is an on-going and lifelong process, and it is not possible to
achieve full IC (Deardorff, 2009; Fantini, 2000). A cluster of scholars (Barrett et al., 2014;
Pedersen, 2010) argued that IC cannot be acquired merely through exposure to people of
other cultural backgrounds because the contact may take place under inappropriate
circumstances. Given the reality that it is not possible for all individuals in school settings to
access opportunities to live and study abroad, learners of all ages can achieve intercultural
development through various types of education, namely, informal, non-formal and formal
education (Barrett et al., 2014).

Conclusion
Scholars in the past decades have defined IC in its various iterations, but there has not
been agreement on how this construct should be defined (Deardorff, 2006). This led to
diverse ways of measuring IC which presented challenges for a consolidation of empirical
studies in this field. Some studies conceptualized IC as an overall construct while some only
examined one or several sub-dimensions of IC. Efforts are needed to provide a unanimously
accepted definition of this construct for a more solid review. For this reason, researcher has
issued calls for greater attention to other pre-determined factors that have the potential to
influence changes in learners’ IC, including learner’s cultural heritage (Arshavskaya, 2018),
the level of ethnocentricity, personality and anxiety (Bücker & Korzilius, 2015), cognitive
competence and linguistic competence (Chang & Zhao, 2012), the national context (Damnet,
2008) and prior learning outcomes that are specific to concepts related to IC (Cushner &
Chang, 2015). Moreover, the cultural content embedded in the interventions also merits
attention, as culture is a complex concept encompassing knowledge, habitual behaviors,
customs, beliefs, values and so forth (Axelrod, 1997; Harris, 1993) and is changeable and
dynamic (Sewell, 1999). Including concrete or abstract details of authentic and up-to-date
culture in interventions may contribute to greater changes in IC.

Reference
Axelrod, R. (1997). The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global
polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(2), 203–226.
Barrett, M. D. (2011). Intercultural competence. EWC Statement Series, 2, 23–27.
Intercultural competence: A distinctive hallmark of interculturalism? In M. Barrett
 (Ed.). Interculturalism and multiculturalism: Similarities and differences (pp. 147–168).
Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Bennett, M. (2017). Development model of intercultural sensitivity. In Y. Kim (Ed.).
International encyclopaedia of intercultural communication. Wiley.
Byram, M., Gribkova, B., & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the intercultural dimension in
language teaching: A practical introduction for teachers. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe, Language Policy Division.
Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1999). A review of the concept of intercultural awareness.
Human Communication, 2(1), 27–54. Cortina, J. M. (2003). Apples and oranges (and
pears, oh my!): The search for moderators in meta-analysis. Organizational Research
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a
student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education,
10(3), 241–266.
Elo, M., Benjowsky, C., & Nummela, N. (2015). Intercultural competences and interaction
scheme: Four forces regulating dyadic encounters in international business. Industrial
Marketing Management, 48, 38–49.
Eriksen, E. (2018). Promoting intercultural competence in the English classroom by using the
novel does my head look big in this?Unpublished master’s thesis. Norway: Østfold
University College.
Fantini, A. E. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools. In D. K.
Deardorff (Ed.). The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 456–476).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hong, Y. Y., & Cheon, B. K. (2017). How does culture matter in the face of globalization?
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 810–823.
Pedersen, P. J. (2010). Assessing intercultural effectiveness outcomes in a year-long study
abroad program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), 70–80.
Peng, R. Z., Wu, W. P., & Fan, W. W. (2015). A comprehensive evaluation of Chinese
college students’ intercultural competence. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 47, 143–157.
Perry, L. B., & Southwell, L. (2011). Developing intercultural understanding and skills:
Models and approaches. Intercultural Education, 22(6), 453–466.
Root, E., & Ngampornchai, A. (2013). “I Came Back as a New Human Being” student
descriptions of intercultural competence acquired through education abroad
experiences. Journal of Studies in International Education, 17(5), 513–532.
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in
quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 59–
82.
Ryan, S. E. (2010). Let’s get them out of the country! Reflecting on the value of international
immersion experiences for MPA students. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(2),
307–312.
Sercu, L. (2010). Assessing intercultural competence: More questions than answers. In A.
Paran, & L. Sercu (Eds.). Testing the untestable in language education (pp. 17– 34).
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sewell, W. H. (1999). The concept(s) of culture. In V. E. Bonnell, & L. H. Berkeley (Eds.).
Beyond the cultural turn: New directions in the study of society and culture (pp. 35–
61). CA: University of California Press.
Yarosh, M., Lukic, D., & Santibáñez-Gruber, R. (2018). Intercultural competence for
students in international joint master programmes. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 66, 52–72.
Zhao, H. A. O., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of
psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 60(3), 647–680.