.Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL). vol.14 , no .

1 , march 2011
Teachability of Intercultural Sensitivity from the Perspective of Ethnocentrism vs.
Ethnorelativism: An Iranian Experience
Ali Rahimi
University of Kashan
Ali Soltani
Zanjan Medical University
Abstract

This study was an attempt to investigate the probable realtionship between Iranian EFL
learners' linguistic competence and intercultural sensitivity on the one hand and the feasibility
of enhancing their intercultural sensitivity through actual classroom training on the other. To
this end, 36 male and female college seniors were randomly selected from two classes after
being homogenized. The participants were required, at the outset, to complete an Intercultural
Sensitivity Scale (ISS).They, then, attended a half-a-semester-long intercultural sensitivity
training course and completed the same scale once again at the end of the semester. The
results obtained through pre-test and post-test and subjected to paired t-test as the most
approprite statistical technique indicated a remarkable increase in Iranian EFL students
intercultural sensitivity level and their propensity for moving from ethnocentric stages to
ethnorelative stages.This effective stride can in turn crystallize the possibility of teaching
intercultural sensitivity in an asian context theorized by some scholars and can, if generalized
nationwide, most probably revolutionize foreign language teaching.It is specifically intended
for all stake-holders in the field of ELT who have restricted themselves merely to linguistic
competence; and have consequently not given due weight to intercultural communicative
competence as a sine qua non for modern language education.
Key Words: Intercultural Sensitivity, Intercultural Training, Ethnocentrism, Ethnorelativism

Introduction
Monumental changes occurring in the fields of science and technology have changed the
world into a global village of expanding technology and shrinking geography. All these
shifts, especially in the realm of cybernetics, have resulted in the drastic reduction of the
distance between people from different cultures and societies.As Peng, Lu & Wang (2009)
argue, rapid advancements in telecommunication technologies, particularly the Internet,
have created opportunities for users to acquire immediate access to the world (p.95).
Whenever one speaks of telecommunication, communication, globalization, and
glocalization a term coined by East (2008:156) to represent the combined nature of
globalization and localization, language is the most immediate concept which crosses one's
mind.In other words, speaking a different language appears to be the most problematic
impediment. However, what seems to be even more significant and maybe to the same degree
difficult is to speak a different language at a level which must be beyond one's linguistic
competence to fulfill the intended objectives. As Novinger (2001) asserts, speaking a
different language is an obvious obstacle to intercultural communication, but a greater and
more difficult hurdle is to speak a different culture.(p.1)
Today's global society proves unable to survive without interculturally competent
individuals who have already obtained an understanding of different cultures and have
equipped themselves with the ability to appropriately and effectively notice and experience
cultural differences in their cross-cultural encounters (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003).
Taking into consideration the shift of attention, over the recent years, from such fields
as syntax, phonology, and semantics to pragmatics and sociocultural issues, Widdowson also
claims:
If we do not engage students with socio-cultural meanings then do
we not trivialize the subject? ....what do students learn English for?
we are teaching an impoverished (Italics Mine) pragmatics, and we
provide little basis for the kind of awareness of other cultures
and communities which is claimed one of the purposes of
foreign language study (1992:335).

Having conducted a study on the role of cultural aspects in foreign language teaching,
Cortes (2007) also concludes that, if students do not learn about these aspects, they will
never achieve full communicative and sociocultural competence in the foreign
language"(p.230). Young et al.(2009) go even further and claim if culture is not actively
approached in the classroom, it may negatively impact on learning.
Consequently, in the contemporary world in which preparing language learners for
intercultural communication seems a sine qua non for modern language education, hardly can
one deny the significance attached to intercultural sensitivity and intercultural communicative
competence (ICC) as the prerequisites for effective interaction with members of other
cultures. Thus, language educators need to feel the necessity of the inclusion of cultural
components in their syllabi in order for their learners to become successful in their
intercultural interactions (Byram,1997; Bennett, 1998; Kramsch, 1998; Byram, Nicholas, &
Stevens, 2001; Bennett, Bennett, & Allen, 2003; Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003;
Phillips, 2003; Hammer & Bennett, 2004).

Interrelationship between Language and Culture

Emphasizing the inseparable socio-cultural characteristics of language, Brown (1994) points
out "a language is a part of a culture and a culture is a part of a language; the two are intricately
interwoven so that one cannot separate the two without losing the significance of either
language or culture"(p.165).Rivers (1981) also believes understanding culture is an important
component of foreign language learning without which we cannot use the foreign language
situationally appropriately.
Making an attempt to demonstrate the relationship between intercultural competence
development and foreign language teaching, Byram (1997) concludes if language teachers
would like to be successful in training competent language learners, they need to help
language learners develop intercultural competence through extensive teaching. Parallel to
this, Barletta (2009) also maintains, needless to say, the teaching of intercultural competence
should be an area in the curriculum of undergraduate language education(p. 155).
The interesting point which is well worth mentioning is that although the centrality and
importance of including culture in ESL/EFL learning and teaching has widely been
recognized and stressed by a large number of outstanding scholars (Oxford,1994; TingToomey,1999; Sercu, 2002; Cortes, 2007), seldom can one find cases in which due weight
3

has been given to culture in practice. In other words, inclusion of culture in ESL/EFL
curricula is overdue and is conspicuously neglected and may lead to irremediable
consequences (Young, Sachdev, & Seedhouse 2009).Explicating the other side of the coin,
Young et al.(2009) contend that if culture is approached actively, it might have a positive
effect on learning.Merits of including cultural elements in L2 learning have been pinpointed
by several other scholrs(Oxford, 1994; Kramsch, 1998; Stagigh, 1998; Ho, 1998;
Chastain,1988;James,2000; Tseng, 2002; Genc and Bada, 2005).
Intercultural Sensitivity
Intercultural sensitivity, according to Bhawuk and Brislin (1992), refers to "a sensitivity to the
importance of cultural differences and to the points of view of people in other cultures(p. 414).
Zakaria (2000), who outlines the ingredients of intercultural competence, concludes that
intercultural competence in general is comprised of affective, cognitive, and behavioral
components.The cognitive component is concerned with cultural awareness which leads to a
change in ones thinking about his environment based upon the understanding that one should
not limit himself to his own perspectives due to the fact that there are multiple
perspectives.This alteration in ones manner of thinking can bring about some changes in his
behavior (behavioral component) on the basis of the impacts of culture on ones behavior
(cultural awareness). The affective component of intercultural competence, labeled
sometimes as (inter)cultural sensitivity, deals with varied feelings which are resulted by
changes in people, environment, and communicative encounters while refraining from
ethnocentrism (Chen & Starosta, 1996). It is noteworthy that although intercultural
competence and intercultural sensitivity are interchangeably used by some scholars to refer to
the same thing, Hammer, Bennet, and Wiseman (2003) assert that intercultural sensitivity is
the prerequisite for intercultural competence.
On the other hand, individuals have an increasing number of opportunities to
communicate with people from dissimilar cultures on account of growingly rapid trend of
globalization nowadays.Thus, the significant role intercultural sensitivity can play in
harmonizing diverse cultural groups becomes more crystallized day by day.
Viewing the issue from socio-pragmatic viewpoint, some scholars have regarded
intercultural sensitivity as an important predictor of success in situations in which people need
to interact with individuls with different cultures. Bhawuk and Brislin (1992), among others,
assert:
4

To be effective in another culture, people must be interested in other cultures,

be sensitive enough to notice cultural differences, and then also be willing to
modify their behavior as an indication of respect for the people of other
cultures.A reasonable term that summarizes these qualities of people is
intercultural sensitivity.(p. 416)

Perspectives on Iranian Culture

Providing a comprehensive sketch of diverse elements existing in Irans culture is definitely
beyond the scope of this paper.What follows is a snapshot of drastic differences within Irans
culture compared to non-Iranian cultures particularly those of North America and the United
Kingdom. These differences seem to stem from differences in terms of language, worldview,
value system, attitude, lifestyle, tradition, belief, religion, demographic background, ethnic
background,and literature among other things.
Koutlaki (2010) who has conducted an in-depth investigation into Irans culture
implicitly supports the above-mentioned claims and describes Iran like this, for the majority
of people in the West, Iran remains a tantalizing mystery, a challenge to established patterns of
thought, a source of paradoxes. Just like Rumis elephant, Iran is different things to different
people, whereas in fact it is more than the sum of its parts.(p.2)
Under the strict influence of their culture deeply rooted in their psyches, Iranians ,if not
trained interculturally, are neither expected nor able to interculturally act like Americans or
Britishers or any other people from dissimilar cultures.How do they react when invited by a
next-door neighbor in America? Do they consider it as ostensible or genuine? How do
Americans react under similar circumstances? The answers to these questions are provided by
Eslami (2005: 453 cited in Sharifian, 2007):
Over the years of my intercultural experiences in the United States and
observation of other Iranian/American interactions, I have witnessed that
Iranians sometimes take Americans genuine invitations as ostensible (not to
be taken seriously) and therefore reject them, while Americans may take
Iranian ostensible invitations as genuine and accept them.(p.41)
This single quotation might cogently and explicitly reveal the depth of cultural
differences

in

general

and

tremendously

dissimilar

conceptualizations

in
5

particular.Delineating the link between Persian culture and Persian language, Sharifian (2007)
also argues, the distinctiveness of Persian culture is deeply embedded in the social and
conceptual basis of the Persian language(p.35).
A variety of such schemata as the schema of face (aberu), the schema of ritual
politeness (tarof), the schema of modesty (shekasteh-nafsi), and emotion schema, among
many others, which are numerously applied in Persian culture as a sign of respect towards
others, bring about various fundamental misunderstandings, some irremediably offending, in
intercultural encounters. Take the following case in which an Australian lecturer congratulates
his Iranian student on his recent achievement.
Lecturer: I heard youve won a prestigious award. Congratulations!This is fantastic.
Iranian student: Thanks so much. I havent done anything. Its the result of your effort
and your knowledge. I owe it all to you.
Lecturer: (appearing uncomfortable) Oh, no!!! Dont be ridiculous. Its all your work.
Exracted from Applied Cultural Linguistics by Sharifian & Palmer (2007:43)
With respect to this conversation, Sharifian (2007) comments,In the above
conversation between an Iranian student and an Anglo-Australian lecturer, the students reply
to the lecturers congratulation appears to have left the lecturer with a certain degree of
discomfort, as he feels that his contribution to the students success has been
overestimated(p.43)
Getting help from corpus linguistics,we can avail ourselves of a huge number of such
cases whose detailed discussions will definitely open up new horizons in this regard. It could
also make us more determined to give due weight to pragmatics as well as metapragmatics in
order to be able to delve into the real causes of such pragmatic failures in intercultural
contexts.One of the reasons put forward is the conceptual system transferred from L1 to L2.In
this respect, Sharifian (2007) maintains, many learners bring the conceptual system that they
have developed while learning their L1 into the learning of an L2, assuming that every single
unit of conceptualization in their repertoire has an equivalent in the conceptual system
associated with the L2(p.33)

Necessity of Intercultural Training

6

Lewis (2005)argues that culture can be learned through teachers.This argument implicitly
confirms the feasibility of intercultural training.A variety of other channels of culture transfer
have been suggested by other scholars.William(1989) believes that newspapers,
radio,computer, magazines, books are among the channels through which cultural differences
could be passed on to individuals.
The positive effect of intercultural training on individuals methods of
thinking,behavior, and interaction has been confirmed by many studies(Sercu, 2002;
Corbett,2003;

Cakir,

2006;

You-ping,

2007;Bloom,

2008;

Young,

Sachdev

and

Seedhouse,2009).The findings of a study conducted by Mendenhall and Oddou (1991),for

instance, revealed that intercultural training causes businessmen to act successfully due to
improved perceptions, and relational skills.The undeniable role of intercultural training in
improving various interactional skills has also been proved by some other scholars through
empirical studies (Triandis, 1977; Gudykunst & Hammer,1983; Gudykunst et. al., 1996;
Fowler & Blohm, 2004).Supporting the necessity of intercultural training, Byram (2008), as
one of the pioneers in this realm, also asserts, acting interculturally pre-supposes certain
attitudes, knowledge and skills that need to be learnt.(p.69)

Ethnocentrism versus Ethnorelativism

Bennett (1998) has organized the developmental stages of increasing sensitivity into two
general categories: ethnocentric and ethnorelative stages which are shown in figure 1 below.He
describes ethnocentric stages including denial, defense, and minimization as "using one's own
set of standards and customs to judge all people, often unconsciously"(p. 26) and ethnorelative
stages including acceptance, adaptation and integration as "being comfortable with many
standards and customs and ... having an ability to adapt behavior and judgments to a variety of
interpersonal settings."(p.26)

Experience of Difference
Denial

Defense

Minimization

Acceptance

Adaptation

Integration

Ethnocentric Stages

E t h n o r e l a t i ve S t a g e s

Figure 1. Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)

Source: (Hammer & Bennett, 2001)
Delineating the stages involved, Hammer & Bennett (2004) argue "each stage is
indicative of a particular worldview structure, and that certain kinds of cognitive processing,
attitudes, and behaviors would typically be associated with each such configuration of
worldview" (p.12). In other words, each stage of intercultural sensitivity deals with the extent
to which our worldview structure changes.
Ethnocentric Stages: In these stages,ones own culture is regarded as central and is preferred
to dissimilar cultures.Racism, as an example, is one of the outcomes of this kind of
worldview.

Denial: It is a stage in which cultural differences are either experienced with some
sort of indifference or are not experienced at all(Bennett, 1993). It is the purest form
of ethnocentrism (Bennett, 1993, p.30). Considering the issue from a different angle,
Hammer et al.(2003) believe, denial of cultural difference is the state in which ones
own culture is experienced as the only real one(p.424).
Taking into account the cultural differences of the Asians and Westerners, Bennett
(1986) claims, Asians are different from Westerners, without recognizing that Asian

cultures were different in any way from one another (p. 183).
Defense:As the label represents it is a kind of defense against dissimilar cultures . In
this stage, one considers ones own culture as the only viable one (Hammer et al.,
2003, p. 242).Looking at the issue from a different perspective, Bennett (1993)
considers the cultural differences at this stage as a threat to ones own sense of reality
and thus to ones identity, which at this point is a function of that one cultural
reality(p. 35).One moderated form of this stage is labeled as Reversal. At this stage,
as Hammer et al. (2003) argue, there is a type of us and them worldview.It is

different from defense in that a different culture is not considered as a threat anymore.
Minimization: At this stage, various elements constituting ones own culture and
worldview are considered and experienced as universal Hammer et al. (2003,
p.424).Cultural differences continue to exist, however, they are at a minimized level.
According to Bennett (1986), cultural difference is overtly acknowledged and is not
negatively evaluated (p. 184) at this stage.Also, individuals, who are now more
8

open-minded and exhibit more tendency towards accepting other worldviews, do not
regard cultural differenc a threat any longer.
Ethnorelative

Stages:

These

three

DMIS

orientations

appear

to

be

more

ethnorelative.Individuals experience their own culture in the context of other cultures

(Hammer et al. 2003, p.425).

Acceptance: At this stage, individuals are more inclined to respect cultural differences
and values and assumptions are not seen as things so much as they are perceived as
manifestations of human creativity(Bennett, 1993, p. 50).It is claimed by Bennett
(ibid) that it is the stage at which there is a move from ethnocentrism to
ethnorelativism. Hammer et al.( 2003) assert that at this stage, by discriminating
differences among cultures (including ones own), and by constructing a metalevel
consciousness, people with this worldview are able to experience others as different

from themselves, but equally human.(p.425)

Adaptation:It is the stage which is ascribed to the practical application of
ethnorelative acceptance to intercultural communication (Bennett, 1993, p. 51).
Similarly, Hammer etal.(2003) define this stage as, the state in which the experience
of another culture yields perception and behavior appropriate to that culture.Ones
worldview is expanded to include relevant constructs from other cultural
worldviews(p.425).Engagement in empathy has also been mentioned as one of the
characteristics of this stage.This stage is characterized as including cultural pluralism

according to which different cultural wordviews can coexist peacefully.

Integration: This stage is described by Hammer et al. (2003) as, the state in which
ones experience of self is expanded to include the movement in and out of different
cultural worldviews. Here, people are dealing with issues related to their own cultural
marginality; they construe their identities at the margins of two or more cultures and
central to none(p.425).People who reach this level view cultural differences as a
blissful segment of their lives (Bennett, 1986).
In the process of moving from ethnocentric stages towards ethnorelative stages, one

admittedly undergoes some shifts in ones skills, and attitudes, among others, which are
believed to be the manifestations of changes underlying the worldview (Bennett, 2004, p.
75). Overall, Intercultural sensitivity has been taken into consideration as the core of
transferring from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism in the developmental process. Therefore,
any attempt to identify individuals' intercultural sensitivity, as a step towards this transfer, will
9

be of assistance for them to realize and understand why cultural differences are important. and
the DMIS, whose major objective is conciousness raising with regard to comprehension of
cultural differences, can serve as one of the best models which can be employed when it
comes to identification of intercultural sensitivity level as well as its enhancement.
The significant role of intercultural sensitivity has also been empirically affirmed in a
number of studies. Bhawuk and Brislin (1992), for instance, conducted a study with the
purpose of testing intercultural sensitivity inventory among graduate students in Hawaii and
concluded that, people with high intercultural sensitivity were chosen as most able to interact
effectively across cultures ....; enjoyed working on complex tasks that demanded extensive
intercultural interaction; enjoyed engaging in other intercultural activities such as eating
different ethnic foods.(p. 414)
Having conducted a study on the relationship among intercultural sensitivity, global
competencies, and international experience, Christa Lee and Kroeger (2001) found a positive
correlation between intercultural sensitivity and international experience as well.They
concluded that recognition of similarities and differences between cultures is indispensable
for surviving in a global village or in Sercus terms todays globalizing information highway
society.(2002:61)

Statement of the Problem

Our own particular interest in intercultural communicative competence in general and
intercultural sensitivity in particular originates from Milton Bennetts (1993) highly thoughtprovoking article in which he vividly maintains that many students and some teachers view
language as groups of words and rules, and learning a foreign language is equated by them
with learning how to substitute some specific words using some rules to get the intended
meaning with a tool different from their own. He then argues the results of this kind of
thinking will be some fluent fools who are good at conversation but know little of
sociocultural issues. In his article entitled How not to be a fluent fool, he implicitly warns
language teachers of training fluent fools, and language learners of becoming fluent fools. He
then goes on to define fluent fool as someone who speaks a foreign language well but does
not understand the social or philosophical content of that language(p.16).According to him,
the cultural dimensions of language should be given due weight by language learners in order
to avoid becoming a fluent fool.
10

Bearing all the above-mentioned issues in mind while being highly inspired by
Bennetts invaluable comments regarding the unavoidability of cultural aspects of language
teaching as well as the inextricability of language and culture, the researchers made an
attempt to take a step forward towards the enhancement of intercultural communication
through practical intercultural sensitivity training.
This study was therefore prompted by two major objectives which could hopefully be
achieved by attempting to answer the following research questions:
1) Can an intercultural sensitivity training course enhance Iranian EFL learners' intercultural
sensitivity level?
2) Is there any relationship between Iranian EFL learners intercultural sensitivity level and

linguistic competence?
Method
Participants
The subjects who served as the main participants for this study were 36 senior students
majoring in English-Persian Translation at Tabriz Daneshvaran University who were
randomly selected from among 52 students after being homogenized. The general language
proficiency test of TOEFL was employed to guarantee their homogenity. Coming from three
such different ethnic backgrounds as Turkish, Persian,and Kurdish, the participants were both
male and female and their age ranged from 21 to 35.They were provided ,in the first place,
with sufficient information regarding the purposes for conducting the study. Every participant
was assured that participation in this study was voluntary and their personal information
would remain absolutely confidential.
It should be acknowledged that the number of the participants could be larger.However,
the invesigators were obliged to limit themselves to this number due to pratical restrictions
and the lengthiness of the training.

Instrumentation
In order to fulfill the main purposes of the present study, the following instruments and
materials were utilized:
1)Language Proficiency Test
General language proficiency test of TOEFL which is a valid and standardized test was
administered to the participants to guarantee their homogeneity. Based on the results of the
11

TOEFL test, the participants who scored between one standard deviation above and one
standard deviation below the mean on the normal distribution were selected as the main
participants of this study. The test consisted of three sections : 1)Structure and witten
expressions section(40 items),2)Vocabulary section(30 items), and 3)Reading comprehension
section (30 items). All the items were in multiple choice format.
2)Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS)
Being comprised of twenty four five-point Likert items,Chen and Starosta's (2000)
intercultural sensitivity scale was employed to measure Iranian EFL learners' intercultural
sensitivity level. This scale is divided into five parts or subscales: interaction engagement(e.g.
I enjoy interacting with people from different cultures), respect for cultural difference (e.g. I
respect the values of people from different cultures), interaction confidence (e.g. I am pretty
much sure of myself in interacting with people from people from different cultures), interaction
enjoyment (e.g. I often get discouraged when I am with people from different cultures), and
interaction attentiveness (e.g. I am very observant when interacting with people from different
cultures).
This scale is normally applied to test how individuals feel when communicating with
people having cultural backgrounds other than their own.This scale,with nine items reversed
scored, possesses an alpha reliability coefficient of 0.86 according to the study conducted by
Chen and Starosta (2000) in the United States of America. Another study with a German
sample reported the internal consistency values of its five subscales to range from .58 to .
79(Fritz, Mollenberg, & Chen, 2001).The concurrent validity of the Intercultural Sensitivity
Scale was also evaluated by Chen and Starosta (2000).The results of their evaluation
indicated the existence of significant correlations(p< .05) between the Intercultural Sensitivity
Scale on the one hand and some other similar instruments like Perspective Taking Scale, Selfesteem Scale on the other.Hence, the instrument proves reliable and adaptable for use with
diverse cultures (Fritz, Mollenberg, and Chen, 2001)(SeeAppendix A).
The intercultural sensitivity scale has already been used for measurement in previous
studies such as Chen and Starosta(2000) and Fritz, Mollenberg, and Chen (2001) and has
been shown to be a consistently reliable and valid instrument for the measurement of
intercultural sensitivity.Also, its adaptability for use with dissimilar cultures has been
confirmed by Fritz et al. (2001).In this study, the Cronbach Alpha reliability turned out to be
0.84.
12

3) A coursebook entitled Mirrors and Windows

A courrsebook entitled Mirrors and Windows: An intercultural communication textbook
written by Huber-Krieger, Lazar and Strange (2003) was employed as the main source whose
contents were fully covered in the classroom. This book has been designed particularly for
intercultural sensivity training.Describing the objectives of this book, Lazar(2003) comments:
The aim of this textbook is to assist trainers and teachers in integrating ICC training in
language education by providing them with teaching materials with an intercultural
focus. The main objective is to help the readers reflect on their own culture and then
discover other cultures and the relationships between these. They are first invited to
look in the mirror at their own culture, and then out of the window at other cultures
they may be interested in or want to interact with.(p.69)
The instructional materials included give titles and examples

4)A teachers guide entitled Developing and Assessing Intercultural Communicative

Competence: A guide for Language Teachers and Teacher Educators
This book whose first half is dedicated to methods of intercultural training provides the
teacher with the necessary guidelines as to how to make intercultural training as effective as
possible.The second half of the book focuses on assessement methods of intercultural
communicative competence.The book turned out to be highly helpful in the process of
intercultural training.
Byram and Fleming (1998: 9) claim that someone who has intercultural competence has
knowledge of one, or, preferably, more cultures and social identities and has the capacity
to discover and relate to new people from other contexts for which they have not been
prepared directly. Fantini (2000: 28) describes five constructs that should be developed
for successful intercultural communication: awareness, attitudes, skills, knowledge and
language proficiency. Furthermore, he also cites the following commonly used attributes
to describe the intercultural speaker: respect, empathy, flexibility, patience, interest,
curiosity, openness, motivation, a sense of humour, tolerance for ambiguity, and a
willingness to suspend judgment. Empathy, not to be confused with sympathy, is viewed
as an attitude, namely the apprehension of anothers emotional state or condition. It
derives from the enhancement of the cognitive learning through the affective. It requires
understanding, an activity rather than passive acceptance. It requires a change in
viewpoint which has to be worked towards, engaged with. It is not a feeling; it is an
ability to participate in a form of life (Byram, 1989: 89).
These courses consciously and systematically incorporate elements of both big C and
little c culture-general knowledge through culture-specific examples that are not only
coming from the target culture(s). They emphasise skills development in the areas of
observation, interpreting and relating, mediation and discovery, as well as attitude
formation to increase respect, empathy and tolerance for ambiguity, to raise interest in,

13

curiosity about, and openness towards people from other cultures, and to encourage a
willingness to suspend judgment.

Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted by the researchers during spring semester in 2010 with two
intact groups of 50 college seniors from Zanjan University.In order to homogenzie the
students, a language proficiency test of TOEFL was utilized (t-observed: .86 < tcritical: 2; p<05; df: 56). ). Kuder-Richardson (KR-21) formula was used to estimate

the reliability of the test which was found to be ???????/Subequently, the Intercultural
Sensitivity Scale (a 24-item Likert inventory by Chen and Starosta, 2000) was administered
two times with a two-weak interval. The reliability indices for the students' responses to the
inventory was estimated using the Cronbach alpha formula and high consistency indices
turned out to be .73 and .71.It is worth mentioning that Kuder-Richardson (KR-21) formula
was given priority because it, as Brown (1996) argues, proves to produce a more conservative
estimate of reliability compared to other formulae.
Brown, J. D. (1996).Testing in language programs.Upper Saddle River,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Procedures
This experimental research was based upon the study of Iranian senior English as a foreign
language students who undertook an intercultural sensitivity course which was offered during
spring semester in 2010.Prior to the beginning of the training, the participants' intercultural
sensitivity level was measured using intercultural sensitivity scale. From the next session on
to the end of the semester, the researchers made an attempt to increase the participants'
intercultural sensitivity level through highlighting the similarities and differences existing
between the home and target cultures and requiring them to carry out group and paired
classroom activities. A book entitled Mirrors and Windows : An intercultural communication
textbook written for the same purpose by Huber-Krieger, Lazar and Strange (2003) was
employed as the main source whose contents were fully covered in the classroom. The
researchers examined the learners' intercultural sensitivity levels both before and after the
training course and determined the possible enhancement levels of their intercultural
sensitivity through comparing the results obtained in the pretest and the posttest.
The participants were required to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed at
the suggested statements which were followed by the 5-point Likert-type scale: 1.strongly
14

disagree, 2.disagree, 3.uncertain, 4.agree, and 5.strongly agree. The researchers informed the
participants that there were no right or wrong answers for each item, and that the only purpose
was to measure the participants' levels of intercultural sensitivity.

Results and Discussion

The data, obtained through pre-test and post-test and subjected to appropriate statistical
techniques indicated that the participants made a substantial headway in increasing their
intercultural sensitivity level and that the intercultural sensitivity training course designed for
this purpose proved successful enough in this respect which in turn implies that the
participants moved from ethnocentric stages towards ethnorelative stages. In other words, the
analysis

of

the

results

through

paired

t-test

confirmed

our

first

hypothesis

statistically(P<0.05). Chart 1 below clearly displays the increase in the participants level of
intercultural sensitivity yielded as the result of intercultural training.

__________________________________________________________________
Chart 1. Rates of intercultural sensitivity level before and after the training

Since the intercultural sensitivity level of the EFL learners has considerably increased
after the training course, based upon the empirical evidence supplied, we can conclude that:1)
Chen and Starosta's (2000) intercultural sensitivity scale, already proved applicabe in
American (Chen and Starosta, 2000) and European contexts (Fritz, Mollenberg, & Chen,
2001), turned out to be applicable in an asian setting as well.2) The teachability of cultural
componetnts as

the inseperable part of foreign language education, theorized by such

prominant scholars as Byram (2008) and Lewis (2005), among others, is empirically
15

corroborated.3)Iranian EFL learners displayed storng inclination towards moving from

moving from ethnocentric stages to ethnorelative stages which is again verified by their
increased intercultural sensitivity levels resulted from their rigorous and vigorous
participation in the training course. 4)There is a direct relationship between linguistic
competence and intercultural senitivity.In other words,the higher the level of linguistic
competence, the higher the level of intercultural senitivity and the other way round.This
claim is evidenced by the statistcal analysis in which, owing to the normality of intercultural
senitivity

and

TOEFL variables

verified by Kolmogorov-Smirnov technique(p>0.05),

Pearson Correlation was employed to assess the relationship between the intercultural
senitivity level of the participants and their TOEFL exam results which was confirmed
statistically at .95 confidence level.This correlation can be justified by the claim made by
some scholars including William(1989) who believe that newspapers, radio,computer,
magazines, books are among the channels through which cultural differences could be passed
on to individuals.This claim imples that individuals who expose themselves to such channles
more often than others usually become more proficient lingustistically and get acquainted
with more cultural differences. Thus, the second hypothesis is also confirmed. Table 1 below
demonstrates the correlation between linguistic competence and intercultural senitivity level.
Table 1. Correlation between Intercultural Senitivity (ICS) and TOEFL
ICS_pre
ICS-pretest

Pearson Correlation

TOEFL
.775**

.827**

.000

.000

36

36

36

.775**

.731**

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
TOEFL

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

ICS-posttest

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

ICS_POST

.000

.000

36

36

36

.827**

.731**

.000

.000

36

36

36

If these results are construed as a sort of causal effect, then it can also be concluded that
intercultural sensitivity training and ethnocentrism reduction are interrelated and this sort of
training can contribute to the reduction of ethnocentrism.Furthermore, a number of studies
16

have provided some evidence that intercultural conciousness raising, which can be buffered by
intercultural sensitivity training, can lead to higher level of motivation in second language
learning (Dornyei, 1994; Robinson-Stuart and Nocon, 1996).Also, a study carried out by Ho
(1998) found a strong correlation between Taiwanese students attitudes and their readiness to
learn culture(r = .50) on the one hand, and their motivation (r = .44) for learning English on
the other.In brief, by developing positive cultural attitudes towards target language culture,an
intercultural sensitivity training course can promote EFL learners motivation which can in
turn contribute to successful language learning (Ely, 1986; Gardner, Day, & Maclntyre, 1992).
In summary, all the afore-mentioned findings imply that even if we fail to strongly
claim that Iranian EFL learners are at the first stage of ethnorelativism, we can probably
claim that they have left behind the first two stages of ethnocentrism ( i.e. denial of difference
and defense against difference) and are at least at the stage of minimization of difference. It
means they certainly acknowledge that there are cultural differences which should be
highlighted and valued.

Conclusion
This study attempted to investigate whether intercultural sensitivity training contributes to the
enhancement of Iranian EFL students' intercultural sensitivity level and their inclination to
move from ethnocentric stages to ethnorelative stages.Intercultural sensitivity training, as the
findings of this study indicated, proved successful in augmenting learners' intercultural
sensitivity level and did influence conspicuously their positive attitudes towards target
culture.Accordingly, intercultural sensitivity training is strongly recommended to be included
in the curriculum of undergraduate foreign language education to guarantee the success of
EFL learners who need, in addition to culminating their linguistic competence, to be
interculturally competent so as to avoid pragmatic failures by communicating effectively and
appropriately in diverse intercultural encounters.
To shed more light on the efficiency of intercultural sensitivity training as well as the
generalizability of the findings, further research can be carried out with a larger
population.Furthermore, this study may be replicated in the realm of English for Specific
Purposes (ESP) as one of the most prominent areas of EFL teaching nowadays.Finally,
further research may be conducted on other such domains as intercultural attitudes, skills,
knowledge, etc. in order to address intercultural competence more comprehensively.
17

References
Barletta M. N. (2009). Intercultural competence: Another challenge.Profile, Issues in
Teachers' Professional Development, 11(1),143-158.
Bennett, M. J. (1986). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural
sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.),Cross-cultural orientation: New conceptualizations
and applications (pp. 27-70). New York: University Press of America.
Bennett, M.J. (1993). How not to be a fluent fool: Understanding the cultural dimensions of
language. The Language Teacher, 27(9), 16-21.
Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming Interculturally Competent. In Wurzel, J. (Ed.). Toward
multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 62-77).Newton,
MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation.
Bennett, M. J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. Bennett
(Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication (pp. 1-34).Yarmouth, Maine:
Intercultural Press, Inc.
Bennett, J. M., Bennett, M. J., & Allen, W. (2003). Developing intercultural competence in the
.language classroom. In D. L. Lange & R. M. Paige (Eds.),Culture as the core (pp
.Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing .(237-270
Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the
concepts of individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 16, 413-436.
Bloom, M. (2008).From the classroom to the community: Building cultural awareness in first
semester Spanish.Language, Culture and Curriculum, 21 (2),103-119.
Brown, D. H.(1994).Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd ed.) Englewood Cliffs,
NJ:Prentice Hall, Inc.
18

Byram, M. (1997).Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence.

Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural
citizenship.Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M., Nicholas, A., & Stevens, D. (2001). Introduction. In M. Byram, A. Nicholas & D.
Stevens (Eds.), Developing intercultural competence in practice (pp. 1-8).Tonawanda,
NY: Multilingual Matters LTD.
Cakir, I. (2006).Developing Cultural Awareness in Foreign Language Teaching.Turkish
online Journal of distance education, 7 (3), 154-160.
Chastain, K. (1988).Developing Second Languages Skills:Theory and Practice. San Diego:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
Chen, G.M. and Starosta, W.J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis.
In B.R. Burleson and A.W. Kunkel (Eds), Communication Yearbook (pp.353-383).
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural
communication sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 5,1-15.
Christa Lee, O., & Kroeger K. R. (2001). Global Competency and Intercultural Sensitivity.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(2), 116-137.
Corbett, J.(2003). An Intercultural Approach to English Languag Teaching. Clevedon:
Multiligual Matters LTD.
Cortes, N. C. (2007). Language Meeting Culture in the Foreign Language Classroom.
Interlinguistica, 17(1),230-237.
Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The
Modern Language Journal, 78 (3), 273-284.
East, M. (2008).'Moving Towards 'Us-Others' Reciprocity: Implications of Glocalisation for
Language Learning and InterculturalCommunication .Language and Intercultural
Communication,8 (3),15-171.
Ely, C. M. (1986). An analysis of discomfort, risktaking, sociability, and motivation inthe L2
classroom. Language Learning, 36(1), 1-25.
Eslami, R. Z.(2005). Invitations in Persian and English:Ostensible or genuine? Intercultural
Pragmatics, 2 (4), 453-480.
Fowler, S. M., & Blohm, J. M. (2004). An analysis of methods for intercultural training. In
19

D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training

(3rded., pp. 3784).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fritz, W., Mollenberg, A., & Chen, G. (2001). Measuring intercultural sensitivity in different
cultural context. Paper presented at the Biannual Meeting of the International
Association for Intercultural Communication Studies, July 24-29, Hong Kong. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 456 491).
Gardner, R. C, Day, J. B., & Maclntyre, P. D.(1992). Integrative motivation, induced anxiety,
and language learning in a controlled environment. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 14, 197-214.
Genc, B. & Bada, E. (2005).Culture in language learning and teaching.The Reading Matrix,
5(1), 73-84.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Hammer, M. R. (1983). Basic training design:Approaches to
intercultural training. In D. Landis & R. W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of
interculturaltraining: Issues in theory and design (pp.118154). Elmsford, NY:
Pergamon
Gudykunst, W. B., Guzley, R. M., Hammer, M. R. (1996). Designing intercultural training.
In D. Landis, & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed.,
pp.6180). Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (2001). The intercultural development inventory.Portland,
OR: Intercultural Communication Institute.
Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (2004). The intercultural developmental inventory (IDI)
manual. Portland, Oregon: Intercultural Communication Institute.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity:
The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 27(4),421-433.
Ho, M. (1998). Culture studies and motivation in foreign and second language learning in
Taiwan. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 11 (2), 165-182.
Huber-Krieger,M., Lazar, I. & Strange, J. (2003).Mirrors and Windows:An intercultural
communication textbook. European Centre for Modern Languages. Council of Europe
Publishing.
James, M. (2000). Culture in ESL instruction: An analytic framework, TESL Canada Journal,
.17 (2), 36-49
Koutlaki, S. A. (2010).among the Iranians: A Guide to Irans Culture and Customs.Boston:
Intercultural Press.
Kramsch, C. (1998). The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M. Byram & M. Fleming
(Eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective (pp. 16-31). Cambridge, UK:
20

Cambridge University Press.

Lazar, I. (2003). Incorporating intercultural communicative competence in language teacher
education. European Centre for Modern Languages. Council of Europe Publishing.
Lzr, I. ,Huber-Kriegler M., Lussier, D.Matei, G. S. ,and Peck C.(2007). Developing and
Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence: A guide for Language Teachers
and Teacher Educators. European Centre for Modern Languages.Council of Europe
Publishing.
Lewis, R. D. (2005). When cultures collide: Leading across cultures. Boston, MA:Nicholas
Brealey International.
Mendenhall, M. & Oddou, G. (1991) Readings and Cases in International Human Resource
Management. Boston: PWS-KENT Pub.Company.
Novinger, T. (2001).Intercultural Communication:A Practical Guide.Austin: Texas University
Press.
Oxford, R. (1994). Teaching culture in the language classroom: Toward a new philosophy.
Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics,26-45. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
Peng, H. , Lu, W. & Wang, C. ( 2009).A Framework for Assessing High School Students
Intercultural Communicative Competence in a Computer-Mediated Language
Learning Project. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 2(1), 95-116.
Phillips, J. K. (2003). National standards for foreign language learning: Culture drivingforce.
In L. Lange & R. M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core (pp. 161-173).Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing Inc.
Rivers, W. M. (1981).Teaching foreign language skills.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Robinson-Stuart, G. & Nocon, H. (1996). Second culture acquisition: Ethnography in the
foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 80 (3), 431-449.
Sercu, L.(2002).Autonomous Learning and the Acquisition of Intercultural Communicative
Competence: Some Implications for Course Development.Language, culture and
Curriculum, 15 (1),61-74.
Sharifian, F.(2007).L1 cultural conceptualizations in L2 learning : The case of Persian
speaking learners of English.In F. Sharifian, & G. B. Palmer (Eds.), Applied Cultural
Linguistics: Implications for second language learning and intercultural
communication (pp.33-51).Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sharifian, F. & Palmer G. B. (2007).Applied Cultural Linguistics: Implications for second
language learning and intercultural communication. Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
21

Stagigh, T. (1998). Cultural context and meaning in foreign language learning. General
Linguistics, 36, 71-79.
Ting-Toomey, S. ( 1999).Communicating Across Cultures. New York: The Guilford Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Theoretical framework for evaluation of cross-cultural training
effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1,1946.
Tseng, Y. (2002). A lesson in culture.ELT Journal, 56(1),11-21.
Widdowson, H. G. (1992).ELT and EL teachers:matter arising. ELT Journal, 46 (4),333-339.
William, F. (1989). The new communication (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.
Young, J. T. , Sachdev, I. & Seedhouse, P. (2009). Teaching and learning culture on English
language programs: a critical review of the recent empirical literature. Innovations in
Language Learning and Teaching, 3 (2),149-169.
You-ping, Z. (2007).Development of Intercultural Awareness: A Strategic Task in Foreign
Language Teaching. US-China Foreign Language, 5 (1),18-24.
Zakaria, N. (2000). The effects of cross-cultural training on the acculturation process of the
global workforce. International Journal of Manpower, 21 (6): 492-511.

A general proficiency test, Nelson 200 A, which comprised 50 multiple choice

grammar and vocabulary items. The test was pilot-tested prior to the
administration and the reliability index obtained through Kuder- Richardson (KR21) formula was .73.
A MELAB Michigan English Language Assessment Battery was used for this study
to measure the English proficiency of the participants. This test included 100
multiple choice items on structure and written expressions, reading
comprehension and vocabulary and was not familiar to the students since it was
not available to them. The Cronbach alpha reliability for the test was 0.87.

As Table 5 reveals, a great majority of students expressed that they were

aware of the portfolio assessment purposes (96%) and they were familiar
with the criteria for portfolio assessme

22

Appendix A: INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY SCALE (ISS)

The purpose of this scale is to examine intercultural sensitivity by asking your perceptions
regarding interactions with people from different cultures. There are no right or wrong
answers. Please rate how much you personally agree or disagree with these statements or how
much these statements reflect how you feel or think personally.
__________________________________________________________________________
1.I often engage people from different cultures in conversation or outside school activities.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

2. I think people from other cultures are narrow-minded.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

3.I am pretty sure of myself in speaking with people from different cultures.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

4. I find it very difficult to talk in front of people from different cultures.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

5. I Know what to say when interacting with people from different cultures.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

6. I can be as sociable as I want to be when interacting with people from different cultures.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

7. I don't like to be with people who have values different from me.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

23

8. I respect the values of people from different cultures.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

9. I get embarrassed easily when interacting with people from different cultures.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

10. I feel confident when interacting with people from different cultures.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

11. I actively look for people from different cultures with whom I can speak another
language.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

12. I enjoy interaction with people who have cultural or language differences.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

13. I am open-minded to people from different cultures.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

14. I am very thoughtful when interacting with people from different cultures.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

15. I often feel useless when interacting with people from different cultures.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

16. I respect the ways people from different cultures behave.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

17. I try to obtain as much information as I can when interacting with people from different
cultures.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

18. I would ignore the opinions of people from different cultures.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

19. I am sensitive to my culturally-distinct counterpart's subtle meanings during our

interaction.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

20. I think my culture is better than other cultures.

a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

24

21. I really put my best effort into trying to interact well with people from different
cultures.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

22. I avoid those situations where I will have to deal with culturally-distinct persons.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

23.I often use verbal or nonverbal cues when I encounter communication difficulties
with people from different cultures.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

24. I try to more actively participate in interaction with people from different cultures than I
have done in the past.
a) Strongly Disagree

b) Disagree c) Uncertain d) Agree e) Strongly Agree

25