Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
50
ATTITUDES AND INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY TOWARDS ENGLISH
LANGUAAGE TEACHING
1Hakan Aydoğan, Ph.D.c. &
2Associate Professor Azamat A. Akbarov, Ph.D
1,2 International Burch University, Sarajevo.
E-mail: [email protected],
Abstract
Culture involves the universally held traditions, judgement of values and ways of
behaving of a particular community. How we develop cultural sensitivity and cultural skill
also involves how we exploit cultural awareness,cross-cultural relationships, what qualities
we need to deal successfully with other cultures, and how to operate successfully with people
from other cultures. Each one of us is getting more and more internationalists nowadays.
This study was carried out to investigate attitudes towards English and Intercultural
Sensitivity of our sample which consisted of 298 students from various international colleges
and faculties in Sarajevo. The results have shown that attitudes towards English and its usage
are correlated with facets of intercultural sensitivity. Also, based on the value of coefficient of
multiple determination, we can conclude that all five facets of ATEUS explain 24.7% of
variance of Interaction engagement. The best predictor of Interaction engagement are Verbal
abilities, Linguo-intercultural sensitivity/flexibility and Emotional attitudes. Also, for Respect
for cultural differences as a criterion the only statistically significant predictor is Linguo-
intercultural sensitivity/flexibility. For Interaction confidence as a criterion the best predictor
is English competence and the other statistically significant predictor is Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility. The best predictor of Interaction enjoyment as a criterion are English
competence Emotional attitudes, which are negatively correlated with Interaction enjoyment
and Verbal expressiveness. Also, for Interaction attentiveness as a criterion, there is only one
statistically significant predictor which is Linguo-intercultural sensitivity/flexibility.
Keywords: interaction engagement, verbal abilities, linguo-intercultural sensitivity/flexibility,
emotional attitudes, respect for cultural differences, interaction confidence, English
competence, verbal expressiveness, interaction attentiveness
1. Introduction
The development of intercultural
sensitivity and awareness is achieved increasingly
using the English language as the medium of
interaction. We are all dealing with foreigners in
our society, travelling abroad more, dealing at a
distance with foreigners through outsourcing or
email, phone and video-conferencing. As our
interculturally-woven planet continues to “shrink”
and cultures collide and conflict with one another, it
is vital for all of us to become more sensitive to the
endless variety of different cultural thinking forms
around us. As Brown (2006) discusses “ Language
and culture are intricately intertwined. Any time
you sucessfully learn a language, you will also
learn something of the culture of the speakers of
that language.” So, we should help our students be
aware of acculturation and its stages emphasizing
the significance of the second language as a
powerful tool for adjustment in the new culture.
Brown (2006) stresses it “especially in second (as
opposed to foreign) language learning contextx, the
sucess with which learners adapt to a new cultural
millieu will affect their language acquisition sucess,
and vice versa, in some possibly significant ways. ”
(p.75).
Our world is changing rapidly and
becoming increasingly multicultural. It is
unavoidably crucial for individuals to develop
intercultural communication competence today due
to the fact that almost all of us are dealing with
intercultural situations every day and everywhere.
Researches suggested that individuals with higher
intercultural communication sensitivity tend to do
51
well in intercultural communication settings (Peng,
2006). Gudykunst and Kim (2003) conceptualize
the phenomenon of intercultural communication as
“...a transactional, symbolic process involving the
attribution of meaning between people from
different cultures” (p. 17).
The intercultural sensitivity model
suggests that as one’s experience of cultural
difference increases, one’s competence in
intercultural situations goes up (Greenholtz, 2000).
Olsen and Kroeger (2001) discovered that
university staff and faculty members who were
highly proficient in a language other than English
and who had diverse cultural experience would
have greater likelihood of possessing higher
intercultural communication skills. One study
showed that students who studied abroad developed
a much higher average increase in terms of ethno-
relativism than students who did not (Williams,
2005).
Bennett (1993) proposed a Developmental
Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), which
suggests that individuals with intercultural
sensitivity tend to transform themselves from the
ethnocentric stage to the ethno-relative stage. This
model includes six developmental stages (Bennett
& Bennett, 2004). Bennet (1993) defines
ethnocentricism as “assuming that world view of
one’s own culture is central to all reality” and
describes six stages of development in intercultural
sensitivity (p.30). The stages provide a good
framework for determining how to work with and
improve the capacity for intercultural sensitivity
and collaboration. Some of his stages of "cultural
sensitivity" include behaviors or adaptations the
authors include under the definition of "cultural
competence."
The first three stages of denial, defense
and minimization are viewed as “ethnocentric.”
Individuals view their own culture as central to
reality, and individuals act by “avoiding cultural
differences through denying its existence, raising
defense against the differences and minimizing its
importance” (Bennett & Bennett, 2004, p.153). The
next three stages (acceptance, adaptation, and
integration) are viewed as “ethno-relative.” During
these stages, people experience the culture in the
context of other cultures, and can be construed as
“seeking cultural difference through accepting its
importance, adapting a perspective to take it into
account, or by integrating the whole concept into a
definition of identity” (Bennett & Bennett, 2004,
p.153).
As Brown (2007) points out “whenever
you teach a language, you also teach a complex
system of cultural customs, values and ways of
thinking, feeling, and acting. ” (p.75).
2. Literature Review
It is of great importance that L2 learners
develop a cognitive understanding of other peoples’
customs, beliefs, and values which are significant in
cross-cultural interaction. McKay (2002) refers to
intercultural learning as “ it can perpetuate
differences, promote the concept of otherness, and
lead to simple dichotomies and stereotyping” (p.
121). It can easily be said that intercultural
communicative competence, i.e. the knowledge,
motivation and skills needed to interact effectively
and appropriately with members of different
cultures (Wiseman, 2002, p. 208).
Hadley (1993) asserts that cultural
understanding must be promoted in various ways so
that students are sensitive to other cultures prepared
to live more harmoniously in the target language
community.
Minela Kerla and Selman Repišti (2013)
examined the intercultural sensitivity and social
self-esteem in the sample of adolescent, third and
fourth grade students of the International School of
Sarajevo. The results have shown a positive
correlation between these two variables.
Precisely, five facets of intercultural sensitivity
explain altogether 36.4% of variance of social self-
esteem. Two statistically significant predictors of
social self-esteem in whole sample were respect for
cultural differences and interaction confidence.
That's also the case for sample of male students
(where the percent of variance explained was 37%).
In female sample, interaction confidence is the only
significant predictor (common variance was 28%).
In a sample of students from the third grade,
interaction confidence is also the only statistically
significant predictor of social self-esteem (33.1%
explained variance). Finally, among the fourth
grade pupils, there are two facets of intercultural
sensitivity which are significantly correlated with
criterion. They are respect for cultural differences
52
and interaction confidence (overall variance
explained in this case is 51.1%).
In another research, Minela Kerla and
Selman Repišti studied the results indicating a
positive correlation between these two variables,
and statistically significant association between
social self-esteem and intercultural sensitivity. The
students report higher social self-esteem and greater
intercultural sensitivity of students. There were
neither any statistically significant differences in
these variables among the students of the third and
fourth grades, nor were any established moderating
effect of gender or class. The students excel in the
performance on all five aspects of intercultural
sensitivity, while students/the third grade students
also have higher average scores than those in the
fourth grade at three facets of these variables ( the
other two are equal ). The comments are the
pedagogical implications of intercultural
communication training programs and increase the
social self-esteem.
In our research, the relationship between
the attitudes of the International Colleges and
University students of English Department and
intercultural sensitivity will be studied.
3. Hypothesis
1) Attitudes towards English and its usage are
correlated with facets of intercultural
sensitivity.
2) Linguo-intercultural sensitivity/flexibility
is the best predictor of all facets of ISS.
3) ATEUS subscales explain statistically
significant part of variance of ISS facets.
3. 1. The object of research and research tasks
1. to investigate attitudes towards English and
Intercultural sensitivity of our sample which
consisted of 298 students from various international
colleges and faculties in Sarajevo.
2. these attitudes towards English and its usage
correlate with facets of intercultural sensitivity
3. to find the best predictor of facets of intercultural
sensitivity (interacion engagement, respect for
cultural, interaction confidence, interaction
enjoyment, interaction attentiveness)
4. Methodology
The model of the research, participants, the
questionnaire, the statistics and inventories used
and the instruments and findings will be discussed
in this part.
4. 1. Participants
Our sample consisted of 298 students from various
international colleges and faculties in Sarajevo.
This sample was chosen because the main topic of
our work was intercultural sensitivity. 20 of the
questionnaires were invalid (half-filled, or there
was an obvious pattern of filling). Therefore, we
made our analysis on 278 questionnaires.
The mean age of our participants was M = 18.57,
with standard deviation of SD = 2.60 (minimal age
was 14 and maximal 33).
Gender distribution of our sample is displayed in
Figure 1.
53
186
23
69
Male
Female
Unknown
Figure 1. Distribution of the sample by gender
As we can see from Figure 1, there were 69 males (24.8% of the total sample) and 186 females (66.9%). 23
students did not provide information about their gender.
It was relevant to show the distribution of our sample by nationality (see Figure 2).
194
51
6
4
17
6
0 50 100 150 200 250
Unknown
Others
Serbian
Montenegrian
Turkish
Bosnian
Figure 2. Sample distribution by nationality
From Figure 2, it is clear that most of the
participants are Bosnians (n = 194, or 69.8%),
followed by those who are Turks (51, i.e. 18.3% of
the total sample). Six (2.2%) are Montenegrians
and four (1.4%) of them are Serbians. 17
participants (6.1%) are members of various nations:
American (2), Albanian (2), Pakistani (2), Chinese
(2), Macedonian (2), Syrian (1), Canadian (1)
Arabic (1), British (1), Mexican (1), Moldavian (1)
and Indian (1). Six of our respondents (or 2.2%) did
not provide infromation about their nationality.
4.2. Measures
We applied two scales for assessment, with
three relevant questions at the beginning of them,
which were on gender, age and nationality.
1) Attitudes towards English and its Usage
Scale (ATEUS, Aydogan, 2013) is made
54
for the purpose of this research. It is
consisted of 30 items and includes five
aspects (facets) of attitudes and usage of
English. These facets are represented as
five subscales of six items each. The first
is English competence (items: 1 to 6), and,
in our research, its Cronbach's coefficient
is α = .890. The second subscale is named
Emotional attitudes (items: 7 to 12) and its
internal consistency is α = .811. The third
is Verbal expressiveness (items: 13-18),
with reliability of α = .907. The fourth is
named Verbal abilities (items: 19-24) and
its Cronbach's coefficient is α = .843.
Finally, the fifth is Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility (items: 25-30), and its
coefficient of internal consistency is α =
.746. ATEUS is in the form of five-point
Likert scale.
2) Intercultural sensitivity scale (ISS, Chen
& Starosta, 2000) is a five-point Likert
scale, consisted of 24 items. Nine of them
are reverse-coded: 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20
and 22. ISS has five subscales (there are
numbers of items and reliability
coefficients in the brackets): Interaction
engagement (items: 1, 11, 13, 21, 22, 23
and 24; α = .518), Respect for cultural
differences (items: 2, 7, 8, 16, 18 and 20; α
= .711), Interaction confidence (3, 4, 5, 6
and 10; α = .624), Interaction enjoyment
(9, 12 and 15; α = .691) and Interaction
attentiveness (14, 17 and 19; α = .351).
When we exclude item 22 from the first
subscale, its Cronbach's coefficient is α =
.631, which is more acceptable than .518.
We can also increase alpha coefficient of
the third subscale, by rejecting the item
number 4 (in this case, α = .679). Hence,
the following analysis will be carried out
without these two items. Alpha coefficient
for the fifth subscale is very low, probably
because there are only three items in it.
4.3. Procedure
This research was conducted in December,
2013, at the International Colleges and International
Burch University in Sarajevo. First, we applied
ATEUS giving students ISS. It took about 10-15
minutes to fill out this questionnaires and none of
the students reported any problems in
understanding the items in these scales. After the
data collection, we entered the data into SPSS for
Win in order to perform appropriate statistical
analysis.
4.4. Statistical Analaysis
Statistical analysis is carried out through
quantitative methods in SPSS - program and results
are presented in tabular and graphical display in the
program: Exel Microsoft Office 2010, Word 2010
since the research is using the following methods:
(1) Konglomorov-Smirnov test – is widely used
and served to assess the normality of distribution.
The basic procedure of calculation is based on
comparing the major empirical and teoretical
distributions. We start with the places where the
empirical and theoretical distribution of the most
distinguished ones, and then examine whether the
effect of these differences vary so that distribution
differs significantly from the normal one. This test
is used for detremining the difference between the
two samples.
(2) Pearson product - moment correlation
coefficient (r) formis used to calculate the
correlation of the two variables. It indicates whether
the two sets overlap or coincide, that the intensity
of the match and whether or not this relationship is
directly or inversely proportional. It applies to two
continuous or interval variables. It indicates
whether or not the one agrees with the second
occurrence of 0 to +1, and how much it is inversely
proportional to the 0 to -1. Inverse proportionality
indicates that the presence or extent rate of one
variable negatively affects the extent of the other.
(3) Linear regresion – In the linear regression
between two variables we search for the best or
optimal line overlapping between them. The
optimal curve is known as the best fit( best fit) or
straight laine (straight line) . Data from one variable
to intersect with data from the other has calculated
the optimum proportions and has run common the
regression line. Regression is used for prediction,
the observation of the dynamic relationships among
variables and the correlation tells about the
relationship between variables. Correlation and
regression are used together because r² are treated
as indicators of the best regression line. These
values in SPSS are usually printed in large letters:
R, and R² (R square). Specifically , if R = 1 , then
55
all points of the variable 'x' is to pass through the
points variable 'y'. A minor, it is a line of best fit
which is weaker. When squared R, gains indicator
of whether and how the project data model is
applied. Thus , R² indicates the proportion of
variation y , which can be explained by x -TV. In
particular, if R ² = 0.71 , then we can say that 71%
of the variance in the dependent variable (y) can be
explained by the action of the independent (x)
(Suzić, 2007).
5. Results
First we calculated descriptive statistical values for
Attitudes towards English and its Usage Scale.
Mean values, standard deviations, minimal and
maximal results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive statistical values for ATEUS
Subscale M SD Minimum Maximum
English competence 23.06 4.67 6 30
Emotional attitudes 24.75 4.35 10 30
Verbal expressiveness 22.94 4.86 6 30
Verbal abilities 23.17 4.10 12 30
Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility
23.25 3.96 12 30
As we can see (Table 1), the highest mean value
have Emotional attitudes (M = 24.75) and the
lowest Verbal expressiveness (M = 22.94). The
most variable results are those of Verbal
expressiveness (SD = 4.86) and the least variable
are the results of Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility (SD = 3.96).
Table 2. Descriptive statistical values for ISS
Subscale M SD Minimum Maximum
Interaction engagement 22.22 3.60 11 30
Respect for cultural differences 23.26 4.56 9 30
Interaction confidence 15.18 2.82 6 20
Interaction enjoyment 11.00 2.87 4 15
Interaction attentiveness 10.97 2.11 3 15
In the Table 2, we can see that the mean value of
the results on Respect for cultural differences is
higher than the mean value for Interaction
engagement (23.26 vs. 22.22). Also, the mean value
for Interaction enjoyment is a bit higher than the
one for Interaction attentiveness (11.00 vs. 10.97).
Respect for cultural differences has broader range
of results (R = 21) than Interaction engagement (R
= 19). Interaction attentiveness (R = 12) has
broader range of results than Interaction enjoyment
(R = 11).
In order to test our first hypothesis, i.e.
attitudes towards English and its usage are
correlated with facets of intercultural sensitivity, we
have conducted correlational analysis. The results
are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Intercorrelational matrix between ATEUS and ISS facets
Interaction
engagement
Respect for
cultural
differences
Interaction
confidence
Interaction
enjoyment
Interaction
attentiveness
English competence .378** .336** .478** .332** .245**
Emotional attitudes .340** .261** .349** .089 .144*
Verbal expressiveness .357** .286** .466** .325** .261**
56
Verbal abilities .431** .330** .457** .280** .292**
Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility
.356** .283** .346** .199** .258**
*correlation coefficients are significant at level .05
** correlation coefficients are significant at level .01
In Table 3, we can conclude that almost all
facets of ATEUS are correlated statistically
significant with ISS aspects. English competence is
correlated most with Interaction confidence (r =
.478, p < .01) and least associated with Interaction
attentiveness (r = .245, p < .01).
Emotional attitudes are most correlated
with Interaction confidence (r = .349, p < .01) and
its correlation with Interaction enjoyment isn't
statistically significant (r = .089, p > .05). Verbal
expressiveness is most correlated with Interaction
confidence (r = .466, p < .01) and least associated
with Interaction attentiveness (r = .261, p < .01).
Verbal abilities are also most correlated
with Interaction confidence (r = .457, p < .01) and
least connected with Interaction enjoyment (r =
.280, p < .01). Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility is most correlated with
Interaction engagement (r = .356, p < .01) and least
associated with Interaction enjoyment (r = .199, p <
.01).
Furthermore, we tested our second and
third hypothesis. For this purpose, we conducted
five linear regression analysis. Our predictors were
subscales of ATEUS and criterions were ISS facets,
respectively. The results are shown in Table 4 to 8.
B means unstandardized regression
coefficient, SE is standard error, Beta (β) is
standardized regression coefficient, t - result of t-
test for regression coefficient, p – significance of
beta, R – coefficient of multiple correlation, R2 –
coefficient of multiple determination, p –
significance of R.
Table 4. Linear regression analysis with Interaction engagement as a criterion
Model B SE Beta T P R R2 p
Constant 8.982 1.455 - 6.174 .000
.497 .247 .000
English competence .060 .071 .078 .853 .394
Emotional attitudes .130 .052 .157 2.502 .013
Verbal
expressiveness
-.019 .065 -.026 -.294 .769
Verbal abilities .202 .076 .230 2.671 .008
Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility
.189 .053 .208 3.541 .000
As we can see in Table 4 above, all
subscales of ATEUS taken together, are in a
statistically significant correlation with Interaction
engagement (R = .497, p < .001). Based on the
value of coefficient of multiple determination, we
can conclude that all five facets of ATEUS explain
24.7% of variance of Interaction engagement.
The best predictor of Interacion
engagement are Verbal abilities (β = .230, p < .01).
Linguo-intercultural sensitivity/flexibility is also
statistically significant predictor (β = .208, p <
.001) and Emotional attitudes, too (β = .157, p <
.05). Other predictors are not statistically
significant.
Therefore; it will be convenient firstly to
develop the verbal abilities and then Linguo-
intercultural sensitivity/flexibility of the students to
be able to increase their interactional engagement as
the best predicators of this characteristics of them.
The increase in the verbal abilities and
Linguo-intercultural sensitivity/flexibility will
naturally affect and increase the interaction
engagement of the students.
57
Table 5. Linear regression analysis with Respect for cultural differences as a criterion
B SE Beta t p R R2 p
Constant 10.112 1.945 - 5.198 .000
.398 .159 .000
English competence .181 .095 .185 1.911 .057
Emotional attitudes .114 .069 .109 1.643 .101
Verbal
expressiveness
-.047 .087 -.051 -.547 .585
Verbal abilities .116 .101 .105 1.150 .251
Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility
.196 .071 .170 2.744 .006
Table 5 shows us that facets of ATEUS,
taken together, are correlated statistically
significant with Respect for cultural differences (R
= .398, p < .001). The explained variance is 15.9%
(R2 = .159). The best and the only statistically
significant predictor is Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility (β = .170, p < .01).
It will be proper to develop the Linguo-
intercultural sensitivity/flexibility of the students to
be able to increase the respect for the cultural
differences in them as the best predicator of this
trait of them. The more the students increase their
Linguo-intercultural sensitivity/flexibility, the more
their respect for the other cultures will increase, too.
Table 6. Linear regression analysis with Interaction confidence as a criterion
B SE Beta t p R R2 p
Constant 4.797 1.101 - 4.358 .000
.541 .293 .000
English competence .122 .053 .202 2.282 .023
Emotional attitudes .066 .039 .102 1.675 .095
Verbal
expressiveness
.073 .049 .126 1.485 .139
Verbal abilities .070 .057 .103 1.231 .219
Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility
.113 .040 .159 2.805 .005
The multiple regression coefficient
between facets of ATEUS and Interaction
confidence is statistically significant (R = .541, p <
.001; see Table 6). The explained variance is
29.3%. The best predictor is English competence (β
= .202, p < .05) and the other statistically
58
significant predictor is Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility (β = .159, p < .01).
It will be convenient to develop the
English competence and Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility of the students to be able to
increase the confidence interaction of them as the
best predicator of this trait of them.
The more the students increase their
English competence and Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility, the more their confidence of
interaction will increase, too.
Table 7. Linear regression analysis with Interaction enjoyment as a criterion
B SE Beta t p R R2 P
Constant 6.063 1.236 - 4.906 .000
.375 .141 .000
English competence .128 .060 .208 2.131 .034
Emotional attitudes -.090 .044 -.137 -2.045 .042
Verbal expressiveness .113 .055 .191 2.046 .042
Verbal abilities .017 .064 .024 .266 .791
Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility
.053 .045 .073 1.166 .244
The predictors, taken all together, are in a
statistically significant correlation with Interaction
enjoyment (R = .375, p < .001; see Table 7). They
explain 14.1% of its variance. The best predictor is
English competence (β = .208, p < .05) and the
other two statistically significant predictors are
Emotional attitudes, which are negatively correlated
with Interaction enjoyment (β = -.137, p < .05) and
Verbal expressiveness (β = .191, p < .05).
Besides developing the verbal
expresiveness and English competence of the
students to be able to increase the interaction
enjoyment of them as the best predicator of them, it
will also be proper to decrease their emotional
attitudes because it is negatively correlated with the
dependent variable.
Table 8. Linear regression analysis with Interaction attentiveness as a criterion
B SE Beta t p R R2 p
Constant 6.310 .926 - 6.813 .000
.334 .112 .000
English competence .004 .045 .009 .093 .926
Emotional attitudes -.011 .033 -.023 -.337 .736
Verbal
expressiveness
.035 .041 .080 .842 .401
Verbal abilities .091 .048 .176 1.885 .061
Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility
.083 .034 .156 2.450 .015
In Table 8, we can conclude that ATEUS
aspects are correlated statistically significant with
Interaction attentiveness (R = .334, p < .001) and
they explain 11.2% of its variance.
There is only one statistically significant predictor –
Linguo-intercultural sensitivity/flexibility ((β =
.156, p < .05).
It will be convenient to develop the
Linguo-intercultural sensitivity/flexibility of the
students to be able to increase the Interaction
attentieveness of them as the single and best
predictor of this trait of the students.
Therefore, we can just partially accept our
second hypothesis (that Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility is the best predictor of all
facets of ISS), and by doing so, we have completely
proved our third hypothesis (ATEUS subscales
explain statistically significant part of variance of
ISS facets).
59
In sum, it is of vital importance to increase
the Linguo-intercultural sensitivity/flexibility to be
also able to increase the Intercultural Sensitivity of
the students as Linguo-intercultural
sensitivity/flexibility offers the maximum
relationship with the sub-dimensions of
Intercultural Sensitivity.
6. Discussion
6. 1. Conclusion
Forming an international cultural
awareness and cultural empathy is a big part of the
responsibility of EFL teachers to well- inform our
students about the other cultural behaviours,
traditions and ways of thinking. and Down
describes culture (1971) “... a culture is a system of
symbols shared by a group of humans and
transmitted by them to upcoming generations” (p.
30). Barnow (1973) suggests that culture is
inheritance and is expressed through culture, “a
culture is a way of life of a group of people, the
configuration of all of the more or less stereotyped
patterns of learned behavior which are handed
down from one generation to the next through
means of language and imitation” (p. 6).
If foreign language teaching means
officially and/or theoretically aimed to make its
learners competent enough to use the target
language for effective communication, the place of
intercultural communication unavoidably will not
be subordinated. It is crucial for individuals to
develop intercultural communication competence
today due to the fact that almost all of us are
dealing with intercultural situations every day and
everywhere. According to Chen and Starosta
(2000), intercultural communication competence
has two pre-requisites: intercultural communication
awareness and intercultural communication
sensitivity. Although intercultural communication
sensitivity may be related to many cognitive,
affective and behavioral aspects of our interactions
with others, it focuses primarily on individuals’
affective abilities, such as managing and regulating
emotions. Cultural awareness provides the
foundation for intercultural communication
sensitivity, which in turn, leads to intercultural
communication competence (Chen & Starosta,
2000).
As Stern (1992) reiterates, “One of the
most important aims of culture teaching is to help
the learner gain an understanding of the native
speaker’s perspective” (p. 216). It is a matter of the
L2 learner “becoming sensitive to the state of mind
of individuals and groups within the target language
community” (p. 217). As EFL teachers, we
continuously deal with our students’ use of
language and effort to help them make it more
proper to their situation and targets. Just as they
need to know how to “moderate” their opinions as
they develop their English language proficiency
level, and how to be polite in various situations,
students should also be able to learn to appreciate
the extent to which many words and expressions are
derived from cultural norms.
Strasheim (1981) argues there is no
question that the successful integration of culture
and language teaching can contribute significantly
to general human knowledge, that language ability
and cultural sensitivity can play a vital role in the
security, defense and economic well-being of the
country and that global understanding ought to be a
mandatory component of basic education (Stratiem
1981, cited in Hadley, 1993).
To conclude, in our research the students
who have higher scores on a scale of Verbal
abilities, lingual-intercultural sensitivity/flexibility
and Emotional attitudes will be better in Interaction
engagement and those who have a high tendency of
the lingual interculural sensitivity/ flexibility will
have more respect for the cultural differences.
Also, those students who have English competence
and linguo-intercultural sensitivity/flexibility will
have more interaction and interaction confidence.
Interaction enjoyment inclined students are seen to
be with high scores of scales in English
competence, Emotional attitudes and Verbal
expresiveness. All in all, for Interaction
attentiveness as a criterion, there is only one
statistically significant predictor- Linguo-
intercultural sensitivity/flexibility. Hence; a fifth
language skill can be conveyed as culture beside
listening, speaking, reading and writing. What the
would-be fifth language skill equips us with is the
formation of mindset and techniques to adapt our
use of English to learn about, comprehend and
appreciate the values, manners of doing things and
special qualities of other cultures. It means
understanding how to use language to accept
difference, to be more flexible and tolerant of ways
60
of doing things which can turn out to be different
than ours. It is an attitudinal change that is
expressed through the use of language.
6. 2. Research Implications
Our research has been done on 298
respondents with specific characteristics and that
presents the limits of the study. It must be noted
that our study refers to this type of school, and to
the possibilities of generalization must be
distinguished among the role of several factors, and
also for the possibility of generalization, it is
necessary to do research on a larger sample as well
as the necessity of examining the causal
relationships.
As the implication for the future research
we propose to increase the number of respondents
as well as including more variables such as
demographic variables and personality type
variables, teaching style, learning style and
management style. Also, as an implication of this
research it is needed to question the teacher type of
personality, their teaching methods and compare the
type of curriculums with these results, which can be
explored in some future research.
Reference
1. Barnow, V. (1973). Culture and
personality. Homewood, 111: Dorsey
Press.
2. Bennett, M. J. (2004). Developing
intercultural sensitivity: An Integrative
approach to global and domestic diversity.
In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J.
Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural
training (pp. 147-165). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
3. Brown, H.Douglas. (2007). Teaching by
Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy (p.74). San Fransisco
State University. Longman Press.
4. Chen, M. and G. Starosta, W. J. (2000).
Intercultural sensitivity. In LA Samovar
and REPorter (Eds.), Intercultural
communication: A reader (pp. 406-413).
Belmont, CA:Wadsworth
5. Chen, G. M. (2000). Globalization and
Intercultural Communication competence.
In shapes of future: Global communication
in the 21st century-proceedings of the
2000 International Communication
Conference (pp. 51-64). Taipei, Taiwan
6. Gudykunst, W. & Kim. Y. (2003).
Communicating with stranger: An
approach to intercultural communication
(4th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
7. Hadley, A. O. (1993). Teaching language
in context. Boston: Heinle and Heinle
Publishers.
8. McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an
international language: Rethinking goals
and approaches. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
9. Minela Kerla and Selman Repišti (2013).
The Intercultural Sensitivity and Social
Self-esteem of High School Students. By.
3rd International Conference on Foreign
Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistics, Sarajevo, May 3-5.
10. Minela Kerla and Selman Repišti (2013) .
Socijalno samopoštovanje i interkulturalna
osjetljivost srednjoškolaca. Pedagogija
2013, vol. 68, br. 3, str. 451-461
11. Olson, C. L., & Kroeger, K. R. (2001).
Global competency and intercultural
sensitivity.
12. Peng, S. (2006). A comparative
perspective of intercultural sensitivity
between college students and multinational
employees in China. Multicultural
Perspectives, 8(3), 38-45.
13. Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in
language teaching. Oxford University
Press.
14. Suzić, N. (2007). Primijenjena pedagoška
metodologija. Banja Luka: XBS
15. Williams, T. R. (2005). Exploring the
impact of study abroad on students’
intercultural
61
16. communication skills: Adaptability and
sensitivity. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 9(4), 356-371.
17. Wiseman, R. L. (2002). Intercultural
communication competence. In W. B.
Gudykunst, & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook
of international and intercultural
communication(2nd ed), (pp. 207-224).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
