- Email: [email protected]
Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of high school students attending an international school
ARTICLE IN PRESS
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of high school students attending an international school David A. Straffon* University of Minnesota, Minnesota, USA
Abstract The purpose of this exploratory study was to measure the level of intercultural sensitivity (ICS) of high school students attending an international school. ICS was defined as ‘‘sensitivity to the importance of cultural differences and to the points of view of people in other cultures’’ (Int. J. Intercultural Relat. 16(4) (1992) 413). Students ranged in age from 13 to 19 years and came from over 40 different countries. The intercultural development inventory (IDI) (IDI manual, 1998) was used to quantify participants’ levels of ICS based on Bennett’s (Int. J. Intercultural Relat. 10 (1986) 179; Education for the Intercultural Experience, Intercultural Press, Yarmouthl, ME, p. 21) conceptualization of ICS in his 6 stage Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). Three hundred and thirty six students participated in the study, from which 13 were further selected to participate in structured interviews. The data from the quantitative and qualitative analysis were then compared. The results showed that 97% of the students were operating in Bennett’s Acceptance or Cognitive Adaptation stages from the DMIS. Levels of ICS were positively correlated with the length of time that the student had attended international schools. Implications for this study are discussed for leadership, curriculum, and policy development at the school level. Use of the IDI with other national school and international school secondary students is needed for comparison purposes. r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Intercultural sensitivity; International schools; Third cultural kids (TCKs); Cross cultural; Intercultural competence; Cultural differences
*Corresponding author. ISKL, PO Box 12645, Kulala Lumpur 50784, Malaysia. E-mail address: dave [email protected] (D.A. Straffon). 0147-1767/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00035-X
ARTICLE IN PRESS 488
D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
1. Introduction Intercultural sensitivity (ICS) describes an individual’s response to cultural differences and perspectives of people from other cultures (Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992). It is developmental in nature, implying that the ICS of an individual is dynamic and may change over time. Education and training are known to play an important role in the development of an individual’s intercultural sensitivity (Paige, 1993; Pruegger & Rogers, 1994). The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the intercultural sensitivity levels, as measured by the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), among high school students attending an international school in Southeast Asia and to test the hypothesis that length of time in an international school, as a function of the intercultural diversity of that school, would be positively correlated with ICS. Conducting an IDI study with international school students provides baseline data that may allow for comparisons with students in other international schools or national schools in countries around the world. Research on intercultural competence, communication competence, and intercultural sensitivity has focused on adult populations, international education exchange participants, and sojourners (Abe & Wiseman, 1983; Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1984). To date, there has not been research of this type carried out with high school students. Pederson (1998) used a modified IDI to explore the ICS of seventh grade students in three different settings in Minnesota: rural, suburban and urban. No such research has been conducted with high school students attending international schools located outside of the United States. International schools represent a very interesting setting for a study of intercultural sensitivity. Often, there are students from up to 50 nationalities attending these schools; therefore encountering cultural difference is normal during the course of the day for these students. They are located in most countries worldwide; ‘‘a reasonable estimate of the numbers of schools which claim to be international schools could be taken to be in excess of 1000’’ (Hayden & Thompson, 2000, p. 48). Many offer a K-12 education, usually in English, following a British or United States curriculum (Pearce, 1998, p. 46). Within these schools, students from all over the world attend class together, share friendships, and build a community between their home and host culture as Willis and Enloe (1990) point out. Because of the cultural and linguistic backgrounds, international school students (a) operate in the midst of cross-cultural contact, (b) are often considered outsiders to any one national culture, and (c) assume mobility and adaptability as givens-in space, personality, and cultural precepts. These students have certain special advantages such as languages, multiple points of view, and other elements of crosscultural understanding. (p. 176)
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
489
2. Review of the literature 2.1. Intercultural sensitivity This study utilizes Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) (1986, 1993) to conceptualize intercultural sensitivity. According to Bennett, ICS can be expressed on a continuum consisting of three Ethnocentric stages (Denial, Defense, and Minimization) and three Ethnorelative stages (Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration). ICS data were collected using the IDI (Hammer & Bennett, 1998), a 60-item inventory. This instrument provides a quantitative measure representing the individual’s response to cultural difference. 2.2. Third culture kids (TCK’s) Students who attend international schools have been labeled ‘‘third culture kids’’ (TCK’s) and represent a population of students who grow up outside the cultures of each parent and separate from the culture of the host country. They have unique characteristics, issues, and perspectives. (McKillop-Ostrom, 1999; Pollock & Van Reken, 1999). The term, third culture kid, was coined by John and Ruth Hill Useem in the 1950s while they were in India studying Americans who were stationed there as foreign service workers, missionaries, technical aid workers, businessmen, and teachers (Pollock & Van Reken, 1999, p. 20; J.M.Bennett, 1993, p. 110). They realized that these people, along with expatriates from other countries, formed distinct communities and a lifestyle that was different from either their home or host country culture. The Useem’s defined the home culture as the adults’ first culture and the host culture where the family lived as the second culture. Thus, the shared lifestyle in the expatriate community was a culture between two cultures and was termed the third culture. Children growing up in this environment are referred to as third culture kids because they have lived away from their home country for extended periods of time, losing a strong identity with their home country by acquiring characteristics of other cultures and blending them with their own identity (McKillop-Ostrom, 1999, p. 3). The life of expatriate children is one that straddles cultures. Generally, this is not their choice, but rather an imposed situation. Their ability to function well in a constructive manner is influenced by many variables and is positively influenced by their relationship with their family, their self-confidence prior to the move, and the number of previous moves (Nathanson & Marcenko, 1995; Stroh, 1990). Although an imposed situation, children of expatriates ultimately must negotiate the cultural differences presented to them by the host country, their school, and home. All of this must take place in addition to the normal course of physical and emotional development common to adolescents the world over (Chelsey, 2000, p. 116). At times, the task may be overwhelming and their lives can be lonely and difficult as they attempt to find the home, physically and culturally, they never had.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 490
D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
2.3. Cultural marginality J.M. Bennett (1993) has described the phenomenon of an individual dealing with two or more internal cultures as cultural marginality (p. 112). This individual has two competing cultural voices that are creating an internal culture shock that is independent of what the external world is presenting. The ‘‘encapsulated’’ marginal has experienced a disjunction from constantly changing frames of reference and has difficulty controlling the shifts between them. These marginals may have a sense of alienation and may perceive themselves as incapable of having a peer group with whom to relate. This captive state may be called ‘‘terminally unique’’ in that it seems irresolvable to the individual. Conversely, the ‘‘constructive’’ marginal, as noted in J.M. Bennett’s (1993) model, functions at a higher level of effectiveness and competence. This person maintains control of her/his choices and is able to construct and maintain boundaries. The constructive marginal is always at home in the world and perceives his/her peer group as other marginals, not members of his/her own culture (p. 113). In the international school there are many students whose lives are described by this model and who may be considered cultural marginals. The goal would be to ensure that they become constructive marginals and that is a role that the school can play by explicitly creating an environment that is supportive of diversity and opportunities for positive cross-cultural contact to occur resulting in intercultural literacy [competence] (Heyward, 2000, p. 32).
2.4. Intercultural sensitivity and international schools Scant research has been conducted on students in international schools and their level of intercultural sensitivity has never been measured using a statistically reliable instrument. Due to the types of experiences these students have, and the situation in which they find themselves, they are a compelling population to study. The issues they face regularly are the same issues that confront increasing numbers of the world’s people as migration and immigration continue to make increased contact with cultural differences inevitable. Studying the characteristics of students in international schools can provide insights and lessons for educators, trainers, and researchers concerned with intercultural sensitivity and inform curriculum and policy decisions in schools and colleges. There is an assumption that students in an international school have a higher degree of intercultural sensitivity due to increased mobility and contact with other cultures (McKillop-Ostrom, 1999; Pollock & Van Reken, 1999; Willis & Enloe, 1990). That assumption was tested in this study by exploring the relationship between ICS and exposure to international schools.
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
491
Table 1 Top ten nations represented in the study from largest to smallest frequency Nationality United States Japan Malaysia Korea Australia Canada India Taiwan Sweden United Kingdom Total
Frequency (n)
Percent
49 48 37 35 24 18 14 12 9 7
14.6 14.3 11.0 10.4 7.1 5.4 4.2 3.6 2.7 2.1
253
75.4
Note: The total number of nationalities represented in the sample is 43.
3. Methods 3.1. Participants The participants in this study were high school students, grades nine through twelve, attending an international school in a large Southeast Asian city. Students in this high school of 450 range in age from 13 to 19 years old and come from over 40 different countries around the world. In this sample, males and females were equally represented at n ¼ 168 each. Of the different nationalities represented in the school, the top five populations were; United States with 19%, Korea with 14%, Japan with 13%, Malaysia with 8%, and Australia with 6%. Most graduates from the school seek tertiary education in the United States, Europe, Australia, or Japan. Table 1 lists, in order of frequency, the top ten countries of origin for students who participated in the study. 3.2. Instrument The IDI is a 60 item, paper and pencil, self-assessment instrument ‘‘designed to focus on specific patterns of human behavior in order to assist people in better understanding the dynamics of their interaction with others’’ (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, p. 19). It provides an empirical measure of an individual’s general orientation and response to cultural difference as defined by Bennett’s DMIS. It is important to note that there are two differences between the IDI and the DMIS. First, the IDI does not differentiate the 13 subscales identified theoretically by the DMIS. For example, the IDI has one overall Denial score that combines the Isolation and Separation subscales which are found in the DMIS. Second, the Ethnorelative stages of Adaptation, and Integration, are slightly different as measured by the IDI. Specifically, Integration has been replaced with two forms of Adaptation, Cognitive and Behavioral.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 492
D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
For the purposes of this study, both the individual scales and an overall IDI score were used. The IDI or Developmental Score (DS) incorporated in the analysis was developed by Paige, Jacobs-Cassuto, Yershova, & DeJaeghere (2003). It was useful to create a single IDI score for each individual as a way to make comparisons between groups and examine relationships between the score and the independent variables in the study.
3.3. Procedure All students were invited to take the IDI. Parent Consent forms were distributed to all students in their English class (the only content area course in which all students were enrolled). Students were given 2 weeks to return the form, signed. The researcher made two announcements at the regular Monday assemblies to the whole student body to remind them to return their forms. During the third week, the IDI was administered during English classes to students who had returned the Parent Consent form. Of the 450 students enrolled in the high school in September 2000, 336 (75%) students returned the obligatory Parent Consent form and were eligible to participate in the study. Students who had not returned the Parent Consent form worked on regular class material while the other students completed the survey. Generally, students were finished taking the survey within 30 min. The surveys were collected from all English teachers and the survey data entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, 10.0) for statistical analysis. Not all of the students completed every question of the survey during the initial administration. Of the 336 surveys, 7 (2%) had three missing responses, 13 (4%) had two missing responses, and 59 (17%) had one missing response. The researcher went back to the individual students and had them complete the survey by answering the missing question(s). Students with the highest and the lowest DS scores at each grade level were asked to participate in follow-up interviews to add depth and context to the findings. The range of Developmental scores for students interviewed were 3.28 (Minimization) to 4.96 (Cognitive Adaptation). Student gender and nationality were also considered in selecting the interviewees in order to achieve a balanced sample. The structured interviews of ten questions asked the students about their understanding of culture, their relationship with other students, and their experiences day to day at school.
4. Results 4.1. IDI findings The IDI results presented in Table 2 include the mean ratings and standard deviations for each stage of the model as well as the Developmental score across the sample. Means ranged from 2.34 in Denial to 5.70 in Acceptance.
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
493
Table 2 Mean ratings and standard deviation
Mean SD
Denial
Defense
Minimize
Accept
Cog adp
Bhv adp
Develop score
2.34 0.871
2.45 1.051
4.57 0.908
5.70 0.637
4.74 0.743
4.92 0.759
4.02 0.419
Note: n ¼ 336:
Table 3 Descriptive statistics for the developmental score of the sample Descriptive
Statistic
Mean SD Median Minimum score Maximum score Range Variance
4.02 0.419 3.86 3.28 5.11 1.83 0.175
Note: n ¼ 336:
Table 4 Frequency and percent of student scores based on developmental scores Stage
Denial
Defense
Minimize
Accept
Cog adp
Bhv adp
Range N %
0.5–1.49 0 0
1.50–2.49 0 0
2.50–3.49 10 3
3.50–4.49 238 71
4.50–5.49 88 26
5.50–6.49 0 0
Note: n ¼ 336:
4.1.1. Research question: What is the range of intercultural sensitivity? The first part of the study was to explore and describe the population in terms of the range of intercultural sensitivity as measured by the IDI. For this question, the Developmental score was used to determine the range of scores for the sample as a whole. As can be seen in Table 3, the minimum Developmental score was 3.28 and the maximum Developmental score was 5.11 with a range of 1.83. The minimum Developmental score (3.28) fell into the Minimization stage (2.50– 3.49) on the IDI and the maximum Developmental score (5.11) fell into the Cognitive Adaptation stage (4.50–5.49) of the IDI. The mean was 4.22 which places the sample average in the Acceptance stage (3.50–4.49) of the IDI. The number of students scoring in each stage based on their Developmental score is represented in Table 4.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 494
D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
Table 5 Pearson correlation for the length of time attending an international school and each stage and developmental score Denial Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed)
a
0.18 0.001
Defense a
0.16 0.003
Minimize 0.04 0.526
Accept 0.03 0.621
Cog adp
Bhv adp
a
b
0.16 0.004
0.12 0.027
Develop score 0.19a 0.000
Note: n ¼ 336: a Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). b Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
According to the IDI results, only 3% of the respondents had Ethnocentric worldviews. None of them scored in Denial or Defense and only 10 respondents had Minimization IDI scores. The vast majority (97%) of the students were located in the Ethnorelative perspectives of Acceptance (n ¼ 238) and Cognitive Adaptation (n ¼ 88). 4.1.2. Research question: Relationship between length of time attending an international school and intercultural sensitivity? Students were asked to state the amount of time that they had been in this international school as well as any other international schools on the demographic section of the survey. Together, the times represent the total length of time that they had attended international schools. Students new to the school were instructed to score 0 on the demographic portion of the survey so that a score of 0 would indicate that this was the first year for the student(s) to attend an international school. The mean for students in the sample was 5.7 years in an international school, with a standard deviation of 4.1 years. For some of the younger students, this mean indicated that more than half of their formal schooling had been in international schools. As Table 5 reports, correlations were run to examine the statistical relationship between the length of time a student had attended an international school and each of the stage scores and the Developmental score. The relationship for Denial and Defense was statistically significant and negative as hypothesized with r ¼ 0:18; po0:01 and 0:16; po0:01; respectively. The longer students attended an international school, the lower their score in these two stages. A low score in the stages of Denial and Defense indicated that these students have moved along the continuum in the model away from the worldview identified by the early stages of ethnocentrism. It suggests that they do not have a perspective expressed in a basic disinterest and/or avoidance of cultural differences (Denial) nor do they have the perspective of superiority of their own culture and/or denigration of other cultures (Defense). The relationship between the length of time in an international school and the level of intercultural sensitivity was also statistically significant for Cognitive Adaptation, r ¼ 0:16; po0:01; for Behavior Adaptation, r ¼ 0:12; po0:05; and for the
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
495
Developmental Score, r ¼ 0:19; po0:01: This positive relationship implies that as the total years in an international school increased, the level of intercultural sensitivity also increased. Overall, the results of the correlation analysis support the hypothesis that the length of time spent in international schools is associated with higher levels of ethnorelativism and lower levels of ethnocentrism. 4.2. Interview findings The purpose of the interviews was to crosscheck the IDI results and to provide more insights into how respondents with varying ICS orientations viewed cultural differences. Interview responses were examined for congruence with an interviewee’s Developmental score (DS). The perspective of Minimization was represented in the responses by some of the 13 students who were interviewed. In responding to the question, ‘‘What do you think is more important to pay attention to, cultural differences or cultural similarities?’’ only one student stated that it was more important to pay attention to similarities than to differences. Allan, a 15 year old from the United States said: Cultural similarities because if you focus on the negative parts of why cultures are different you achieve nothing. I guess if you look at them, it’s all special, but cultural similarities will make you better to look at because you realize not everybody is totally different and you realize that these people have their differences but they are a lot like me and that’s really neat, so they’re neat people. Allan’s DS was 4.77, which places him in the Cognitive Adaptation stage. However, his response was from the perspective of minimization in which there is a basic belief in the similarity of all people and a disavowal of deep cultural differences (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, p. 36). Seven students interviewed stated that both similarities and differences were equally important which is indicative of a cognitive shift because these students are now able to consider the possibility of alternative worldviews and that the perspective will be different from their own. Their thinking is still based in Minimization but is moving towards Acceptance and the ethnorelative end of the continuum. Representing that perspective was Sofia, an 18-year-old student from Denmark when she stated: I think both. You can look at both in a positive way because if you don’t have differences than you don’t have anything to learn from each other. Differences are something you should appreciate and similarities are something you can enjoy together and understanding [sic]. Depends on what kind of outlook you want to have on it. Sofia’s Developmental score was 3.89, placing her in the lower end of the Acceptance stage. Her response indicated a shifting out of Minimization when she acknowledged the learning that can occur with people from different cultures. For Sofia, her DS and interview response were congruent.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 496
D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
Five students stated that it was more important to pay attention to cultural differences. Myung Ki, a 19 year old from Korea, with a DS of 3.79 (low end of Acceptance) was succinct in his response to the question: Culture difference because we have to learn more about other cultures. I think. Myung Ki’s statement shows openness to learning more about others. By focusing on learning about others, his cultural self-awareness may also increase facilitating movement towards a more complete ethnorelative worldview and movement out of Minimization. The mean Developmental score for the sample was in the Acceptance stage. This is the first ethnorelative stage and represents a large cognitive shift that crosses the ethnocentric to ethnorelative divide of the DMIS. Individuals in the Acceptance stage have a perspective that acknowledges the existence of different cultures and the cognitive structures to experience and understand those differences. ‘‘The expression of the Acceptance worldview is the perception of behavior and values existing in cultural context (cultural relativism) and the appreciation of cultural differences’’ (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, p. 39). Individuals operating within this stage find cultural differences interesting. This attitude towards cultural difference was evident in some students in response to the question, ‘‘When you encounter a cultural difference, what is you first reaction?’’ seven students expressed an interest in finding out more about that difference. Melanie, a 15 year old from the United States expressed it this way: My first reaction would be sort of ‘‘wow, this is interesting’’. What are they trying to figure out; exactly what is it? And then, once you figure it out, you go like ‘‘okay, no don’t want that’’ or ‘‘oh, that’s sort of interesting’’ and you want to learn more about the other cultures. Melanie’s DS was quite high, 4.96, indicating that she was operating from the Cognitive Adaptation perspective. Four students stated that the difference was not necessarily good or bad, but different. Balazs, a 15-year-old student from Hungary with a DS of 4.59 (low end of Cognitive Adaptation), said: My first reaction is to understand why the difference exists and I guess then to solve the difference or to accept it. Inherent in the statements by both of these students is an interest in learning more about other cultures and not placing a value judgment on the differences. This represents a perspective that is grounded in an ethnorelative worldview consistent with their Developmental scores. Yuka, a 17-year-old student from Japan with a DS of 3.60, showed the range of student thinking on this question when she stated her perspective this way: Because Japan is a very small country—only Japanese live there, so I don’t know other people going there [sic]. I thought all people in the world are the same culture.
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
497
Yuka’s response illustrated a lack of experience with cultural difference and displayed the cognitive development evident when one is unable to discriminate cultural differences, an ethnocentric perspective. Though her DS is in the low end of the Acceptance stage, her stage scores in Denial and Defense, 4.4 and 3.0, indicate that her perspective is grounded in the ethnocentric end of the continuum and her response is congruent with her IDI scores. The highest Developmental scores for the sample fell in the Cognitive Adaptation stage. Persons operating within this stage reflect a worldview that is solidly located on the ethnorelative end of the model’s continuum. Individuals in Cognitive Adaptation are able to shift their frame of reference to the perspective of someone from another culture. ‘‘The expression of Cognitive Adaptation is a positive predilection toward biculturalism, an ability to take the perspective of one or more cultures, and a tendency to act as a bridge between cultures’’ (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, p. 42). Individuals in this stage are not completely bicultural, but they are moving in that direction. People within the stage of Cognitive Adaptation often have spent a significant amount of time living in and among other cultures. The mean length of time that students in this study have spent living outside of their home country was 6.7 years, which is between one-third and one-half of their entire lives. Living abroad and having regular contact with a range of people from other cultures is typical of people in this developmental stage. Third culture kids attending an international school certainly qualify as individuals who have extensive contact with people from other cultures on a daily basis. To clarify student knowledge of the concept of culture, the students interviewed were asked, ‘‘What does the word ‘culture’ mean to you?’’ This exploratory question sought to gain insight into the student’s level of understanding of this important concept. The depth of their responses and their ability to articulate their thinking varied. Some of the students’ responses reflected a very superficial understanding of the term. Myung Ki noted: Culture meansycountry and lifestyle. Similarly, Yuka stated: Culture shows each country’s characteristics. I think it’s like symbol of a country. Both of these students’ DS were in the low end of the Acceptance stage and both had relatively high stage scores in Denial and Defense; this is consistent with their responses, which show a lack of understanding of the meaning of culture. As second language English speakers, they may not have the capacity to express their level of understanding orally. Other students showed a deeper conceptual understanding of culture and focused on traditions, history, ways of being, group membership, and relationships with past
ARTICLE IN PRESS 498
D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
generations. For Anna, a 15-year-old student from Australia with a DS of 4.87 (Cognitive Adaptation), culture was described as: Your upbringing and what you believe in and what you think is important and where you come from. 15-year-old Allan (DS=4.96) from the United States, said that for him, culture was: yhow somebody identifies themselves as a group, like things an individual has, certain qualities they have that makes them, their group, different from other groups; people who do certain things together, they try to identify themselves a certain way. Both of these students, with higher Developmental scores, were able to articulate what ‘‘culture’’ meant to them. A student’s understanding of culture and the ability to articulate that perspective serves as a foundation for culture learning, both about themselves and about others. Many of the students’ responses to the interview questions were aligned with their stage and/or Developmental scores as measured by the IDI. There were also responses that reflected a perspective either higher or lower than the respondent’s DS. One explanation for this is that the IDI measures intercultural sensitivity based in developmental terms rather than in static terms (Hammer and Bennett, 1998, p. 13). There is a general progression from the ethnocentric stages towards the ethnorelative stages, though the movement is not always one-way or permanent. However, the stage scores provide a fairly consistent picture of cultural perspective for a given individual at a given time (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, p. 14) and responses around a given stage score can be expected.
5. Discussion The assumption that students who are attending international schools have a high level of intercultural sensitivity is supported by this data. Most of the students had Developmental scores in the Acceptance stage with a second large group in the Adaptation stage; both of which represent an ethnorelative worldview. Only a very small percentage of students had DS in the Minimization stage, an ethnocentric worldview. However, caution is required in the interpretation of this result in that there are no previous studies using the IDI with a similar sample to use for comparison purposes. The length of time that a student had attended an international school was found to have a statistically significant relationship with the level of ICS in these students. The mean length of time in attendance at an international school for this sample was 5.7 years. As the length of time increased, the level of a student’s ICS also increased. Interviews conducted with 13 students having a range of Developmental scores, of different grade levels, and of different nationalities showed congruence between student responses and their DS. There were some student responses that expressed
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
499
perspectives either higher or lower than the DS, but this is accounted for by the assumptions of the DMIS (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, p. 13).
6. Recommendations for further study The results of this study support the theoretical and conceptual foundation of the DMIS (Bennett, 1986, 1993). As this is the first study conducted with high school students, there is not a similar equivalent sample for comparison. Determining whether or not the average scores for this sample, particularly the Developmental Score, were significantly higher or lower when compared to other same-aged students was not possible. It is suggested that further research with this population be done in other national and international high schools in different countries for comparison purposes and to explore relationships between other independent variables. A second area for further investigation would involve examining the formal and informal curricula that exist in international schools. This research could build on the work done in the United States with multicultural education and multiethnic education (Banks, 1988; Banks, 1994; Nieto, 1996). Though the context for much of the work in the United States has been focused on racial issues of domestic diversity, there could be application for this work in the international context. A formal curriculum that honors the contributions of all cultures to the collective knowledge base is appropriate regardless of the location. A third area for further work involves the role of school leadership. Individuals in that role must take the lead in making intercultural competence a central, explicit component of professional staff development. Time spent on inservice training for faculty is necessary to ensure that teaching is responsive to the learning styles of a diverse student body. Determining the level of intercultural sensitivity of the faculty is a first step towards increasing faculty awareness of the importance of their role in modeling intercultural sensitivity. Unless the faculty is consciously teaching inclusive values, and providing experiences for positive cross-cultural interaction for students, any explicit statements by the school regarding the value of diversity will be for naught. Another area for further research would be the continued examination of international schools in general and the notion that they are in essence an experiment in progress. International schools have a unique constituency that is living in the world of cultural diversity today that will be the norm for tomorrow. ‘‘The international school, multicultural and intercultural, is a fertile environment for providing future generations of intercultural competent global citizens who can lead others’’ (Luebke & Gaw, 2000, p. 90). This intentional experiment could be viewed as a trial run where cultures meet and work and live and learn together. We are currently not organized to gain the insight and knowledge that is available through a systematic approach towards investigating cultural diversity and developing best practices for increasing intercultural sensitivity in schools. With the increasing number of mobile families worldwide, international schools are a
ARTICLE IN PRESS 500
D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
permanent fixture for educating large numbers of students and can be used as research sites for exploring issues around cultural diversity and developing intercultural competence.
References Abe, H., & Wiseman, R. L. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 53–67. Banks, J. A. (1988). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Banks, J. A. (1994). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 179–196. Bennett, J. M. (1993a). Cultural marginality: Identity issues in intercultural training. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 109–135). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (1993b). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bhawuk, D., & Brislin, R. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(4), 413–436. Chelsey, R. (2000). Parents and students in overseas schools. In R. J. Simpson, & C. R. Duke (Eds.), American overseas schools (pp. 93–122). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. R. (1984). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: Culture specific or culture general. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 1–10. Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (1998). The intercultural development inventory (IDI) manual. Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication Institute. Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (2000). International education: Flying flags or raising standards. International Schools Journal, 19(2), 48–56. Heyward, M. (2000). Intercultural literacy and the international school. International Schools Journal, 19(2), 29–36. Luebke, P. T., & Gaw, K. F. (2000). Intercultural sensitivity and culture shock. In R. J. Simpson, & C. R. Duke (Eds.), American overseas schools (pp. 51–91). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. McKillop-Ostrom, A. (1999). Addressing transition in international schools: Learning from the experiences of internationally mobile children. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Bath, Bath, England Nathanson, J. Z., & Marcenko, M. (1995). Young adolescents’ adjustment to the experience of relocating overseas. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(3), 413–424. Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Paige, R. M. (1993a). On the nature of intercultural experiences. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 1–19). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, Y. A., & DeJaeghere, J. (2003). Assessing intercultural sensitivity: A psychometric analysis of the Hammer and Bennett intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 467–486. Pearce, R. (1998). Developing cultural identity in an international school environment. In M. Hayden, & J. Thompson (Eds.), International education: Principals and practice (pp. 44–62). London: Kogan Page. Pederson, P. V. (1998). Intercultural sensitivity and the early adolescent. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Dissertation Abstracts International, 9826849. Pollock, D. C., & Van Reken, R. E. (1999). The third culture kid experience: Growing up among worlds. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
501
Pruegger, V. J., & Rogers, T. B. (1994). Cross-cultural sensitivity training: Methods and assessment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(3), 369–387. Stroh, L. K. (1990). Corporate mobility: Factors distinguishing better adjusted from less well-adjusted children and adolescents. Child Study Journal, 20(1), 19–333. Willis, D., & Enloe, W. (1990). Lessons of international schools: Global education in the 1990s. The Educational Forum, 54(2), 169–183.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of high school students attending an international school David A. Straffon* University of Minnesota, Minnesota, USA
Abstract The purpose of this exploratory study was to measure the level of intercultural sensitivity (ICS) of high school students attending an international school. ICS was defined as ‘‘sensitivity to the importance of cultural differences and to the points of view of people in other cultures’’ (Int. J. Intercultural Relat. 16(4) (1992) 413). Students ranged in age from 13 to 19 years and came from over 40 different countries. The intercultural development inventory (IDI) (IDI manual, 1998) was used to quantify participants’ levels of ICS based on Bennett’s (Int. J. Intercultural Relat. 10 (1986) 179; Education for the Intercultural Experience, Intercultural Press, Yarmouthl, ME, p. 21) conceptualization of ICS in his 6 stage Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). Three hundred and thirty six students participated in the study, from which 13 were further selected to participate in structured interviews. The data from the quantitative and qualitative analysis were then compared. The results showed that 97% of the students were operating in Bennett’s Acceptance or Cognitive Adaptation stages from the DMIS. Levels of ICS were positively correlated with the length of time that the student had attended international schools. Implications for this study are discussed for leadership, curriculum, and policy development at the school level. Use of the IDI with other national school and international school secondary students is needed for comparison purposes. r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Intercultural sensitivity; International schools; Third cultural kids (TCKs); Cross cultural; Intercultural competence; Cultural differences
*Corresponding author. ISKL, PO Box 12645, Kulala Lumpur 50784, Malaysia. E-mail address: dave [email protected] (D.A. Straffon). 0147-1767/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00035-X
ARTICLE IN PRESS 488
D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
1. Introduction Intercultural sensitivity (ICS) describes an individual’s response to cultural differences and perspectives of people from other cultures (Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992). It is developmental in nature, implying that the ICS of an individual is dynamic and may change over time. Education and training are known to play an important role in the development of an individual’s intercultural sensitivity (Paige, 1993; Pruegger & Rogers, 1994). The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the intercultural sensitivity levels, as measured by the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), among high school students attending an international school in Southeast Asia and to test the hypothesis that length of time in an international school, as a function of the intercultural diversity of that school, would be positively correlated with ICS. Conducting an IDI study with international school students provides baseline data that may allow for comparisons with students in other international schools or national schools in countries around the world. Research on intercultural competence, communication competence, and intercultural sensitivity has focused on adult populations, international education exchange participants, and sojourners (Abe & Wiseman, 1983; Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992; Gudykunst & Hammer, 1984). To date, there has not been research of this type carried out with high school students. Pederson (1998) used a modified IDI to explore the ICS of seventh grade students in three different settings in Minnesota: rural, suburban and urban. No such research has been conducted with high school students attending international schools located outside of the United States. International schools represent a very interesting setting for a study of intercultural sensitivity. Often, there are students from up to 50 nationalities attending these schools; therefore encountering cultural difference is normal during the course of the day for these students. They are located in most countries worldwide; ‘‘a reasonable estimate of the numbers of schools which claim to be international schools could be taken to be in excess of 1000’’ (Hayden & Thompson, 2000, p. 48). Many offer a K-12 education, usually in English, following a British or United States curriculum (Pearce, 1998, p. 46). Within these schools, students from all over the world attend class together, share friendships, and build a community between their home and host culture as Willis and Enloe (1990) point out. Because of the cultural and linguistic backgrounds, international school students (a) operate in the midst of cross-cultural contact, (b) are often considered outsiders to any one national culture, and (c) assume mobility and adaptability as givens-in space, personality, and cultural precepts. These students have certain special advantages such as languages, multiple points of view, and other elements of crosscultural understanding. (p. 176)
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
489
2. Review of the literature 2.1. Intercultural sensitivity This study utilizes Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) (1986, 1993) to conceptualize intercultural sensitivity. According to Bennett, ICS can be expressed on a continuum consisting of three Ethnocentric stages (Denial, Defense, and Minimization) and three Ethnorelative stages (Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration). ICS data were collected using the IDI (Hammer & Bennett, 1998), a 60-item inventory. This instrument provides a quantitative measure representing the individual’s response to cultural difference. 2.2. Third culture kids (TCK’s) Students who attend international schools have been labeled ‘‘third culture kids’’ (TCK’s) and represent a population of students who grow up outside the cultures of each parent and separate from the culture of the host country. They have unique characteristics, issues, and perspectives. (McKillop-Ostrom, 1999; Pollock & Van Reken, 1999). The term, third culture kid, was coined by John and Ruth Hill Useem in the 1950s while they were in India studying Americans who were stationed there as foreign service workers, missionaries, technical aid workers, businessmen, and teachers (Pollock & Van Reken, 1999, p. 20; J.M.Bennett, 1993, p. 110). They realized that these people, along with expatriates from other countries, formed distinct communities and a lifestyle that was different from either their home or host country culture. The Useem’s defined the home culture as the adults’ first culture and the host culture where the family lived as the second culture. Thus, the shared lifestyle in the expatriate community was a culture between two cultures and was termed the third culture. Children growing up in this environment are referred to as third culture kids because they have lived away from their home country for extended periods of time, losing a strong identity with their home country by acquiring characteristics of other cultures and blending them with their own identity (McKillop-Ostrom, 1999, p. 3). The life of expatriate children is one that straddles cultures. Generally, this is not their choice, but rather an imposed situation. Their ability to function well in a constructive manner is influenced by many variables and is positively influenced by their relationship with their family, their self-confidence prior to the move, and the number of previous moves (Nathanson & Marcenko, 1995; Stroh, 1990). Although an imposed situation, children of expatriates ultimately must negotiate the cultural differences presented to them by the host country, their school, and home. All of this must take place in addition to the normal course of physical and emotional development common to adolescents the world over (Chelsey, 2000, p. 116). At times, the task may be overwhelming and their lives can be lonely and difficult as they attempt to find the home, physically and culturally, they never had.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 490
D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
2.3. Cultural marginality J.M. Bennett (1993) has described the phenomenon of an individual dealing with two or more internal cultures as cultural marginality (p. 112). This individual has two competing cultural voices that are creating an internal culture shock that is independent of what the external world is presenting. The ‘‘encapsulated’’ marginal has experienced a disjunction from constantly changing frames of reference and has difficulty controlling the shifts between them. These marginals may have a sense of alienation and may perceive themselves as incapable of having a peer group with whom to relate. This captive state may be called ‘‘terminally unique’’ in that it seems irresolvable to the individual. Conversely, the ‘‘constructive’’ marginal, as noted in J.M. Bennett’s (1993) model, functions at a higher level of effectiveness and competence. This person maintains control of her/his choices and is able to construct and maintain boundaries. The constructive marginal is always at home in the world and perceives his/her peer group as other marginals, not members of his/her own culture (p. 113). In the international school there are many students whose lives are described by this model and who may be considered cultural marginals. The goal would be to ensure that they become constructive marginals and that is a role that the school can play by explicitly creating an environment that is supportive of diversity and opportunities for positive cross-cultural contact to occur resulting in intercultural literacy [competence] (Heyward, 2000, p. 32).
2.4. Intercultural sensitivity and international schools Scant research has been conducted on students in international schools and their level of intercultural sensitivity has never been measured using a statistically reliable instrument. Due to the types of experiences these students have, and the situation in which they find themselves, they are a compelling population to study. The issues they face regularly are the same issues that confront increasing numbers of the world’s people as migration and immigration continue to make increased contact with cultural differences inevitable. Studying the characteristics of students in international schools can provide insights and lessons for educators, trainers, and researchers concerned with intercultural sensitivity and inform curriculum and policy decisions in schools and colleges. There is an assumption that students in an international school have a higher degree of intercultural sensitivity due to increased mobility and contact with other cultures (McKillop-Ostrom, 1999; Pollock & Van Reken, 1999; Willis & Enloe, 1990). That assumption was tested in this study by exploring the relationship between ICS and exposure to international schools.
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
491
Table 1 Top ten nations represented in the study from largest to smallest frequency Nationality United States Japan Malaysia Korea Australia Canada India Taiwan Sweden United Kingdom Total
Frequency (n)
Percent
49 48 37 35 24 18 14 12 9 7
14.6 14.3 11.0 10.4 7.1 5.4 4.2 3.6 2.7 2.1
253
75.4
Note: The total number of nationalities represented in the sample is 43.
3. Methods 3.1. Participants The participants in this study were high school students, grades nine through twelve, attending an international school in a large Southeast Asian city. Students in this high school of 450 range in age from 13 to 19 years old and come from over 40 different countries around the world. In this sample, males and females were equally represented at n ¼ 168 each. Of the different nationalities represented in the school, the top five populations were; United States with 19%, Korea with 14%, Japan with 13%, Malaysia with 8%, and Australia with 6%. Most graduates from the school seek tertiary education in the United States, Europe, Australia, or Japan. Table 1 lists, in order of frequency, the top ten countries of origin for students who participated in the study. 3.2. Instrument The IDI is a 60 item, paper and pencil, self-assessment instrument ‘‘designed to focus on specific patterns of human behavior in order to assist people in better understanding the dynamics of their interaction with others’’ (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, p. 19). It provides an empirical measure of an individual’s general orientation and response to cultural difference as defined by Bennett’s DMIS. It is important to note that there are two differences between the IDI and the DMIS. First, the IDI does not differentiate the 13 subscales identified theoretically by the DMIS. For example, the IDI has one overall Denial score that combines the Isolation and Separation subscales which are found in the DMIS. Second, the Ethnorelative stages of Adaptation, and Integration, are slightly different as measured by the IDI. Specifically, Integration has been replaced with two forms of Adaptation, Cognitive and Behavioral.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 492
D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
For the purposes of this study, both the individual scales and an overall IDI score were used. The IDI or Developmental Score (DS) incorporated in the analysis was developed by Paige, Jacobs-Cassuto, Yershova, & DeJaeghere (2003). It was useful to create a single IDI score for each individual as a way to make comparisons between groups and examine relationships between the score and the independent variables in the study.
3.3. Procedure All students were invited to take the IDI. Parent Consent forms were distributed to all students in their English class (the only content area course in which all students were enrolled). Students were given 2 weeks to return the form, signed. The researcher made two announcements at the regular Monday assemblies to the whole student body to remind them to return their forms. During the third week, the IDI was administered during English classes to students who had returned the Parent Consent form. Of the 450 students enrolled in the high school in September 2000, 336 (75%) students returned the obligatory Parent Consent form and were eligible to participate in the study. Students who had not returned the Parent Consent form worked on regular class material while the other students completed the survey. Generally, students were finished taking the survey within 30 min. The surveys were collected from all English teachers and the survey data entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, 10.0) for statistical analysis. Not all of the students completed every question of the survey during the initial administration. Of the 336 surveys, 7 (2%) had three missing responses, 13 (4%) had two missing responses, and 59 (17%) had one missing response. The researcher went back to the individual students and had them complete the survey by answering the missing question(s). Students with the highest and the lowest DS scores at each grade level were asked to participate in follow-up interviews to add depth and context to the findings. The range of Developmental scores for students interviewed were 3.28 (Minimization) to 4.96 (Cognitive Adaptation). Student gender and nationality were also considered in selecting the interviewees in order to achieve a balanced sample. The structured interviews of ten questions asked the students about their understanding of culture, their relationship with other students, and their experiences day to day at school.
4. Results 4.1. IDI findings The IDI results presented in Table 2 include the mean ratings and standard deviations for each stage of the model as well as the Developmental score across the sample. Means ranged from 2.34 in Denial to 5.70 in Acceptance.
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
493
Table 2 Mean ratings and standard deviation
Mean SD
Denial
Defense
Minimize
Accept
Cog adp
Bhv adp
Develop score
2.34 0.871
2.45 1.051
4.57 0.908
5.70 0.637
4.74 0.743
4.92 0.759
4.02 0.419
Note: n ¼ 336:
Table 3 Descriptive statistics for the developmental score of the sample Descriptive
Statistic
Mean SD Median Minimum score Maximum score Range Variance
4.02 0.419 3.86 3.28 5.11 1.83 0.175
Note: n ¼ 336:
Table 4 Frequency and percent of student scores based on developmental scores Stage
Denial
Defense
Minimize
Accept
Cog adp
Bhv adp
Range N %
0.5–1.49 0 0
1.50–2.49 0 0
2.50–3.49 10 3
3.50–4.49 238 71
4.50–5.49 88 26
5.50–6.49 0 0
Note: n ¼ 336:
4.1.1. Research question: What is the range of intercultural sensitivity? The first part of the study was to explore and describe the population in terms of the range of intercultural sensitivity as measured by the IDI. For this question, the Developmental score was used to determine the range of scores for the sample as a whole. As can be seen in Table 3, the minimum Developmental score was 3.28 and the maximum Developmental score was 5.11 with a range of 1.83. The minimum Developmental score (3.28) fell into the Minimization stage (2.50– 3.49) on the IDI and the maximum Developmental score (5.11) fell into the Cognitive Adaptation stage (4.50–5.49) of the IDI. The mean was 4.22 which places the sample average in the Acceptance stage (3.50–4.49) of the IDI. The number of students scoring in each stage based on their Developmental score is represented in Table 4.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 494
D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
Table 5 Pearson correlation for the length of time attending an international school and each stage and developmental score Denial Pearson correlation Significance (two-tailed)
a
0.18 0.001
Defense a
0.16 0.003
Minimize 0.04 0.526
Accept 0.03 0.621
Cog adp
Bhv adp
a
b
0.16 0.004
0.12 0.027
Develop score 0.19a 0.000
Note: n ¼ 336: a Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). b Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
According to the IDI results, only 3% of the respondents had Ethnocentric worldviews. None of them scored in Denial or Defense and only 10 respondents had Minimization IDI scores. The vast majority (97%) of the students were located in the Ethnorelative perspectives of Acceptance (n ¼ 238) and Cognitive Adaptation (n ¼ 88). 4.1.2. Research question: Relationship between length of time attending an international school and intercultural sensitivity? Students were asked to state the amount of time that they had been in this international school as well as any other international schools on the demographic section of the survey. Together, the times represent the total length of time that they had attended international schools. Students new to the school were instructed to score 0 on the demographic portion of the survey so that a score of 0 would indicate that this was the first year for the student(s) to attend an international school. The mean for students in the sample was 5.7 years in an international school, with a standard deviation of 4.1 years. For some of the younger students, this mean indicated that more than half of their formal schooling had been in international schools. As Table 5 reports, correlations were run to examine the statistical relationship between the length of time a student had attended an international school and each of the stage scores and the Developmental score. The relationship for Denial and Defense was statistically significant and negative as hypothesized with r ¼ 0:18; po0:01 and 0:16; po0:01; respectively. The longer students attended an international school, the lower their score in these two stages. A low score in the stages of Denial and Defense indicated that these students have moved along the continuum in the model away from the worldview identified by the early stages of ethnocentrism. It suggests that they do not have a perspective expressed in a basic disinterest and/or avoidance of cultural differences (Denial) nor do they have the perspective of superiority of their own culture and/or denigration of other cultures (Defense). The relationship between the length of time in an international school and the level of intercultural sensitivity was also statistically significant for Cognitive Adaptation, r ¼ 0:16; po0:01; for Behavior Adaptation, r ¼ 0:12; po0:05; and for the
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
495
Developmental Score, r ¼ 0:19; po0:01: This positive relationship implies that as the total years in an international school increased, the level of intercultural sensitivity also increased. Overall, the results of the correlation analysis support the hypothesis that the length of time spent in international schools is associated with higher levels of ethnorelativism and lower levels of ethnocentrism. 4.2. Interview findings The purpose of the interviews was to crosscheck the IDI results and to provide more insights into how respondents with varying ICS orientations viewed cultural differences. Interview responses were examined for congruence with an interviewee’s Developmental score (DS). The perspective of Minimization was represented in the responses by some of the 13 students who were interviewed. In responding to the question, ‘‘What do you think is more important to pay attention to, cultural differences or cultural similarities?’’ only one student stated that it was more important to pay attention to similarities than to differences. Allan, a 15 year old from the United States said: Cultural similarities because if you focus on the negative parts of why cultures are different you achieve nothing. I guess if you look at them, it’s all special, but cultural similarities will make you better to look at because you realize not everybody is totally different and you realize that these people have their differences but they are a lot like me and that’s really neat, so they’re neat people. Allan’s DS was 4.77, which places him in the Cognitive Adaptation stage. However, his response was from the perspective of minimization in which there is a basic belief in the similarity of all people and a disavowal of deep cultural differences (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, p. 36). Seven students interviewed stated that both similarities and differences were equally important which is indicative of a cognitive shift because these students are now able to consider the possibility of alternative worldviews and that the perspective will be different from their own. Their thinking is still based in Minimization but is moving towards Acceptance and the ethnorelative end of the continuum. Representing that perspective was Sofia, an 18-year-old student from Denmark when she stated: I think both. You can look at both in a positive way because if you don’t have differences than you don’t have anything to learn from each other. Differences are something you should appreciate and similarities are something you can enjoy together and understanding [sic]. Depends on what kind of outlook you want to have on it. Sofia’s Developmental score was 3.89, placing her in the lower end of the Acceptance stage. Her response indicated a shifting out of Minimization when she acknowledged the learning that can occur with people from different cultures. For Sofia, her DS and interview response were congruent.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 496
D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
Five students stated that it was more important to pay attention to cultural differences. Myung Ki, a 19 year old from Korea, with a DS of 3.79 (low end of Acceptance) was succinct in his response to the question: Culture difference because we have to learn more about other cultures. I think. Myung Ki’s statement shows openness to learning more about others. By focusing on learning about others, his cultural self-awareness may also increase facilitating movement towards a more complete ethnorelative worldview and movement out of Minimization. The mean Developmental score for the sample was in the Acceptance stage. This is the first ethnorelative stage and represents a large cognitive shift that crosses the ethnocentric to ethnorelative divide of the DMIS. Individuals in the Acceptance stage have a perspective that acknowledges the existence of different cultures and the cognitive structures to experience and understand those differences. ‘‘The expression of the Acceptance worldview is the perception of behavior and values existing in cultural context (cultural relativism) and the appreciation of cultural differences’’ (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, p. 39). Individuals operating within this stage find cultural differences interesting. This attitude towards cultural difference was evident in some students in response to the question, ‘‘When you encounter a cultural difference, what is you first reaction?’’ seven students expressed an interest in finding out more about that difference. Melanie, a 15 year old from the United States expressed it this way: My first reaction would be sort of ‘‘wow, this is interesting’’. What are they trying to figure out; exactly what is it? And then, once you figure it out, you go like ‘‘okay, no don’t want that’’ or ‘‘oh, that’s sort of interesting’’ and you want to learn more about the other cultures. Melanie’s DS was quite high, 4.96, indicating that she was operating from the Cognitive Adaptation perspective. Four students stated that the difference was not necessarily good or bad, but different. Balazs, a 15-year-old student from Hungary with a DS of 4.59 (low end of Cognitive Adaptation), said: My first reaction is to understand why the difference exists and I guess then to solve the difference or to accept it. Inherent in the statements by both of these students is an interest in learning more about other cultures and not placing a value judgment on the differences. This represents a perspective that is grounded in an ethnorelative worldview consistent with their Developmental scores. Yuka, a 17-year-old student from Japan with a DS of 3.60, showed the range of student thinking on this question when she stated her perspective this way: Because Japan is a very small country—only Japanese live there, so I don’t know other people going there [sic]. I thought all people in the world are the same culture.
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
497
Yuka’s response illustrated a lack of experience with cultural difference and displayed the cognitive development evident when one is unable to discriminate cultural differences, an ethnocentric perspective. Though her DS is in the low end of the Acceptance stage, her stage scores in Denial and Defense, 4.4 and 3.0, indicate that her perspective is grounded in the ethnocentric end of the continuum and her response is congruent with her IDI scores. The highest Developmental scores for the sample fell in the Cognitive Adaptation stage. Persons operating within this stage reflect a worldview that is solidly located on the ethnorelative end of the model’s continuum. Individuals in Cognitive Adaptation are able to shift their frame of reference to the perspective of someone from another culture. ‘‘The expression of Cognitive Adaptation is a positive predilection toward biculturalism, an ability to take the perspective of one or more cultures, and a tendency to act as a bridge between cultures’’ (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, p. 42). Individuals in this stage are not completely bicultural, but they are moving in that direction. People within the stage of Cognitive Adaptation often have spent a significant amount of time living in and among other cultures. The mean length of time that students in this study have spent living outside of their home country was 6.7 years, which is between one-third and one-half of their entire lives. Living abroad and having regular contact with a range of people from other cultures is typical of people in this developmental stage. Third culture kids attending an international school certainly qualify as individuals who have extensive contact with people from other cultures on a daily basis. To clarify student knowledge of the concept of culture, the students interviewed were asked, ‘‘What does the word ‘culture’ mean to you?’’ This exploratory question sought to gain insight into the student’s level of understanding of this important concept. The depth of their responses and their ability to articulate their thinking varied. Some of the students’ responses reflected a very superficial understanding of the term. Myung Ki noted: Culture meansycountry and lifestyle. Similarly, Yuka stated: Culture shows each country’s characteristics. I think it’s like symbol of a country. Both of these students’ DS were in the low end of the Acceptance stage and both had relatively high stage scores in Denial and Defense; this is consistent with their responses, which show a lack of understanding of the meaning of culture. As second language English speakers, they may not have the capacity to express their level of understanding orally. Other students showed a deeper conceptual understanding of culture and focused on traditions, history, ways of being, group membership, and relationships with past
ARTICLE IN PRESS 498
D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
generations. For Anna, a 15-year-old student from Australia with a DS of 4.87 (Cognitive Adaptation), culture was described as: Your upbringing and what you believe in and what you think is important and where you come from. 15-year-old Allan (DS=4.96) from the United States, said that for him, culture was: yhow somebody identifies themselves as a group, like things an individual has, certain qualities they have that makes them, their group, different from other groups; people who do certain things together, they try to identify themselves a certain way. Both of these students, with higher Developmental scores, were able to articulate what ‘‘culture’’ meant to them. A student’s understanding of culture and the ability to articulate that perspective serves as a foundation for culture learning, both about themselves and about others. Many of the students’ responses to the interview questions were aligned with their stage and/or Developmental scores as measured by the IDI. There were also responses that reflected a perspective either higher or lower than the respondent’s DS. One explanation for this is that the IDI measures intercultural sensitivity based in developmental terms rather than in static terms (Hammer and Bennett, 1998, p. 13). There is a general progression from the ethnocentric stages towards the ethnorelative stages, though the movement is not always one-way or permanent. However, the stage scores provide a fairly consistent picture of cultural perspective for a given individual at a given time (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, p. 14) and responses around a given stage score can be expected.
5. Discussion The assumption that students who are attending international schools have a high level of intercultural sensitivity is supported by this data. Most of the students had Developmental scores in the Acceptance stage with a second large group in the Adaptation stage; both of which represent an ethnorelative worldview. Only a very small percentage of students had DS in the Minimization stage, an ethnocentric worldview. However, caution is required in the interpretation of this result in that there are no previous studies using the IDI with a similar sample to use for comparison purposes. The length of time that a student had attended an international school was found to have a statistically significant relationship with the level of ICS in these students. The mean length of time in attendance at an international school for this sample was 5.7 years. As the length of time increased, the level of a student’s ICS also increased. Interviews conducted with 13 students having a range of Developmental scores, of different grade levels, and of different nationalities showed congruence between student responses and their DS. There were some student responses that expressed
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
499
perspectives either higher or lower than the DS, but this is accounted for by the assumptions of the DMIS (Hammer & Bennett, 1998, p. 13).
6. Recommendations for further study The results of this study support the theoretical and conceptual foundation of the DMIS (Bennett, 1986, 1993). As this is the first study conducted with high school students, there is not a similar equivalent sample for comparison. Determining whether or not the average scores for this sample, particularly the Developmental Score, were significantly higher or lower when compared to other same-aged students was not possible. It is suggested that further research with this population be done in other national and international high schools in different countries for comparison purposes and to explore relationships between other independent variables. A second area for further investigation would involve examining the formal and informal curricula that exist in international schools. This research could build on the work done in the United States with multicultural education and multiethnic education (Banks, 1988; Banks, 1994; Nieto, 1996). Though the context for much of the work in the United States has been focused on racial issues of domestic diversity, there could be application for this work in the international context. A formal curriculum that honors the contributions of all cultures to the collective knowledge base is appropriate regardless of the location. A third area for further work involves the role of school leadership. Individuals in that role must take the lead in making intercultural competence a central, explicit component of professional staff development. Time spent on inservice training for faculty is necessary to ensure that teaching is responsive to the learning styles of a diverse student body. Determining the level of intercultural sensitivity of the faculty is a first step towards increasing faculty awareness of the importance of their role in modeling intercultural sensitivity. Unless the faculty is consciously teaching inclusive values, and providing experiences for positive cross-cultural interaction for students, any explicit statements by the school regarding the value of diversity will be for naught. Another area for further research would be the continued examination of international schools in general and the notion that they are in essence an experiment in progress. International schools have a unique constituency that is living in the world of cultural diversity today that will be the norm for tomorrow. ‘‘The international school, multicultural and intercultural, is a fertile environment for providing future generations of intercultural competent global citizens who can lead others’’ (Luebke & Gaw, 2000, p. 90). This intentional experiment could be viewed as a trial run where cultures meet and work and live and learn together. We are currently not organized to gain the insight and knowledge that is available through a systematic approach towards investigating cultural diversity and developing best practices for increasing intercultural sensitivity in schools. With the increasing number of mobile families worldwide, international schools are a
ARTICLE IN PRESS 500
D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
permanent fixture for educating large numbers of students and can be used as research sites for exploring issues around cultural diversity and developing intercultural competence.
References Abe, H., & Wiseman, R. L. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 53–67. Banks, J. A. (1988). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Banks, J. A. (1994). An introduction to multicultural education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 179–196. Bennett, J. M. (1993a). Cultural marginality: Identity issues in intercultural training. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 109–135). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (1993b). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bhawuk, D., & Brislin, R. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the concepts of individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(4), 413–436. Chelsey, R. (2000). Parents and students in overseas schools. In R. J. Simpson, & C. R. Duke (Eds.), American overseas schools (pp. 93–122). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. R. (1984). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: Culture specific or culture general. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8, 1–10. Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (1998). The intercultural development inventory (IDI) manual. Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication Institute. Hayden, M., & Thompson, J. (2000). International education: Flying flags or raising standards. International Schools Journal, 19(2), 48–56. Heyward, M. (2000). Intercultural literacy and the international school. International Schools Journal, 19(2), 29–36. Luebke, P. T., & Gaw, K. F. (2000). Intercultural sensitivity and culture shock. In R. J. Simpson, & C. R. Duke (Eds.), American overseas schools (pp. 51–91). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. McKillop-Ostrom, A. (1999). Addressing transition in international schools: Learning from the experiences of internationally mobile children. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Bath, Bath, England Nathanson, J. Z., & Marcenko, M. (1995). Young adolescents’ adjustment to the experience of relocating overseas. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(3), 413–424. Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Paige, R. M. (1993a). On the nature of intercultural experiences. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 1–19). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, Y. A., & DeJaeghere, J. (2003). Assessing intercultural sensitivity: A psychometric analysis of the Hammer and Bennett intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 467–486. Pearce, R. (1998). Developing cultural identity in an international school environment. In M. Hayden, & J. Thompson (Eds.), International education: Principals and practice (pp. 44–62). London: Kogan Page. Pederson, P. V. (1998). Intercultural sensitivity and the early adolescent. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Dissertation Abstracts International, 9826849. Pollock, D. C., & Van Reken, R. E. (1999). The third culture kid experience: Growing up among worlds. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
ARTICLE IN PRESS D.A. Straffon / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27 (2003) 487–501
501
Pruegger, V. J., & Rogers, T. B. (1994). Cross-cultural sensitivity training: Methods and assessment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(3), 369–387. Stroh, L. K. (1990). Corporate mobility: Factors distinguishing better adjusted from less well-adjusted children and adolescents. Child Study Journal, 20(1), 19–333. Willis, D., & Enloe, W. (1990). Lessons of international schools: Global education in the 1990s. The Educational Forum, 54(2), 169–183.