Intercultural Sensitivity

1

Hakan Aydoğan, Ph.D.c. , International Burch University, Sarajevo. E-mail:

[email protected]

Associate Professor Azamat A. Akbarov, Ph.D. , 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

mailto:[email protected]

2

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 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

3

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.

4

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 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.

5

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.

6

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.

7

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 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

8

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 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

9

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

10

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**

Verbal abilities .431** .330** .457** .280** .292**



.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).

11

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



.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.

12

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.

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


Verbal

expressiveness

-.047 .087 -.051 -.547 .585




.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

13

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


Constant 4.797 1.101 - 4.358 .000

.541 .293 .000



Verbal

expressiveness

.073 .049 .126 1.485 .139




.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 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.

14

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


Emotional attitudes -.090 .044 -.137 -2.045 .042

Verbal

expressiveness

.113 .055 .191 2.046 .042

Verbal abilities .017 .064 .024 .266 .791



.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


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




.083 .034 .156 2.450 .015

15

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).

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).

16

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

17

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 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

Barnow, V. (1973). Culture and personality. Homewood, 111: Dorsey Press.

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.

18

Brown, H.Douglas. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy (p.74). San Fransisco State University. Longman Press.

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

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

Gudykunst, W. & Kim. Y. (2003). Communicating with stranger: An approach to intercultural

communication (4th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hadley, A. O. (1993). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and

approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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.

Minela Kerla and Selman Repišti (2013) . Socijalno samopoštovanje i interkulturalna

osjetljivost srednjoškolaca. Pedagogija 2013, vol. 68, br. 3, str. 451-461

Olson, C. L., & Kroeger, K. R. (2001). Global competency and intercultural sensitivity.

Peng, S. (2006). A comparative perspective of intercultural sensitivity between college

students and multinational employees in China. Multicultural Perspectives, 8(3), 38-45.

Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford University Press.

Suzić, N. (2007). Primijenjena pedagoška metodologija. Banja Luka: XBS

19

Williams, T. R. (2005). Exploring the impact of study abroad on students’ intercultural

communication skills: Adaptability and sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 9(4), 356-371.

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.

Intercultural Sensitivity

Documents

Transcript of Intercultural Sensitivity