Instructional Design Implications for Non-native English Speaking Graduate Students: Perceptions on Intercultural Communicative Competences and Instructional Design Strategies for Socially Engaged Learning

Full text

Instructional Design Implications for Non-native English Speaking Graduate Students:
Perceptions on Intercultural Communicative Competences and Instructional Design
Strategies for Socially Engaged Learning
Yeonjeong Park
Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
In
Curriculum and Instruction
(Instructional Design and Technology)
Dr. David M. Moore, Chair
Dr. Barbara B. Lockee, Co-chair
Dr. John K. Burton
Dr. Judith L. Shrum
May 12, 2010
Blacksburg, Virginia
Keywords: non-native English speakers, international graduate students, intercultural
communicative competence, instructional design strategies, socially engaged learning
Copyright 2010, Yeonjeong Park

Instructional Design Implications for Non-native English Speaking Graduate Students:
Perceptions on Intercultural Communicative Competences and Instructional Design
Strategies for Socially Engaged Learning
Yeonjeong Park
ABSTRACT
A university is an academic place with students from a variety of cultures. Non-native
English speaking (NNS) graduate students are a group representing diverse cultural backgrounds.
However, these students’ challenges in linguistic and socio-cultural adjustment impact their
effective learning and academic success. Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) is an
important ability that they need to consider. It assesses attitude, skills, knowledge, adaptability,
flexibility, and communication ability with culturally different people.
Researchers in Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) have suggested that
instructional designers should understand diverse learners’ abilities and cultural characteristics
and apply them in their Instructional Design (ID) strategies. However, the existing ID models do
not specifically include ICC as a consideration in the design process. Furthermore, there has been
a lack of research on culturally diverse or minority students.
Considering NNS graduate students’ characteristics, cultural diversity, and need to
develop ICC, the researcher reviewed three social theories of learning: social learning theory,
sociocultural and cultural-historical activity theory, and situated learning theory. Socially
engaged learning, a synthesized framework, was recommended for NNS graduate students along
with effective ID strategies.
This research investigated perceptions on ICC and ID strategies for socially engaged
learning in a sample of 208 NNS graduate students. Quantitative methods were used to assess
students’ ICC level and perceptions of effective instructional strategies in four categories: (1)
students’ gradual engagement and active participation, (2) learning in rich cultural context, (3)
self-regulation and learning ownership, and (4) integration of communication technologies.
Results showed that NNS graduate students were diverse in background characteristics,
academic disciplines, cultural origins, and previous experiences; they perceived a moderately
high level of ICC; and they generally had positive views on ID strategies for socially engaged
learning. This research can help instructional designers and instructors in higher education to
better understand the needs of NNS graduate students and to prepare them to study more
effectively and have more valuable intercultural experiences.

iii
Acknowledgements
I began the doctoral course with a dream: to be an excellent researcher and practitioner
who can help others learn through the extended knowledge and skills of instructional design and
technology. As I have studied and collaborated with many others in this course, every moment
reminded me I was learning through the social interactions with them and getting priceless and
countless helps from them. I have always realized that I could not accomplish anything without
them. I would like to acknowledge those who have influenced me and contributed to my research
substantially, so I deeply appreciate their help, support, encouragement and love.
First, I would like to thank my advisors who have guided and helped me to complete this
dissertation research. My sincere appreciation goes to Dr. Mike Moore, my advisor, who has
provided insights in regard to how my research can contribute to the body of knowledge on
instructional design and technology, and provided clear guidance with important points so that I
could move from one step to the next step with confidence. His words of encouragement and
praise always motivated me and made me really work hard with full enjoyment of this research
and without any concerns. Also, I really appreciate Dr. Barbara Lockee, my co-advisor, who has
provided critical and practical helps whenever I needed to make important decisions and seek
solutions. Her enthusiasm and services toward the IDT community have always motivated me to
be involved more actively in this area and provided lots of good opportunities to build my
academic and professional career and experience various scholarly activities.
I was very fortunate to have excellent committee members. Dr. John Burton has impacted
my research with his keen insights and critical questions. Above all, I cannot forget the moment
that I was talking with him when I was struggling and felt everything around me as a huge
challenge. His understanding and deep cares expressed with warm words became a great source
of energy as I went through the journey of this study. I must give thanks to Dr. Judith Shrum
who played an essential role in my research. She knew my concern about the lack of expertise in
the foreign language education area and has filled the gaps through the kind explanations with
useful resources, valuable and detailed comments and feedbacks. Without her resources and
feedbacks, this dissertation could not have been completed at all.
I would like to acknowledge IDT faculty at Virginia Tech who have facilitated my
academic maturation and professionalism, and strengthened my capacity and talent from the
previous practices and experiences. Their excellent teaching and instruction became a model to
improve my instructional design skills and form an academic identity. My special thanks go to
Dr. Jennifer Brill who significantly influenced my research topic and the quality of this
dissertation at the early stage. I sincerely appreciate her numerous hours and efforts to help me to
develop academic and professional skills required as a doctoral student and to be able to conduct
rigorous research. She offered countless pieces of advice to me. I am very glad that I was able to
conduct a research project and write articles with her. I must express thankfulness to Dr. Michael
Evans who influenced my research interest at the beginning of my doctoral course. His
demonstration of incorporating emerging technologies into teaching and research, with lots of

iv
useful and attractive resources, has been very valuable. Also, a class of Dr. Katherine Cennamo
made me rethink instructional design principles and apply the ID theories in my instructional
design and development with clearer understanding. Although I do not mention all the courses
that I took, I believe studying in this program has had an important and positive impact on the
formation of my research interests, improved design and research skills, and increased
understanding about the IDT field with different perspectives.
This research would have been impossible without the VT international graduate students
who participated in my study. Although I do not know their names due to anonymity, I really
appreciate that participants took their time for this study and expressed the importance and value
of this study. My research instrument was improved through the review of subject matter experts:
Dr. Judith Shrum, Ms. Francoise Mizutanti, Dr. Jane Falls, and Dr. Barbara Lockee. I sincerely
appreciate their time and valuable comments. Also, I appreciate the pilot test participants who
provided a practical help to make the items clear and comprehensive while checking the
technical functionality. In regard to the data collection, I would like to recognize Monica Gibson,
a director of student services for the Graduate School, who distributed the survey instrument. I
appreciate that Sunha Kim and Hyuksoo Kwon provided hands-on tips about data collection and
analysis in reviewing my instrument and sharing their recent research experiences. I have to
thank to tutors in the VT Writing Center, my native English speaking friends, Thomas, Aprille,
Vanessa, and Carla, and a professional editor, Dr. Pamela Murphy, for improving the quality of
this dissertation and helping me to improve my writing skills.
I cannot neglect to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Jane Falls, a supervisor of my
assistantship and coordinator of the Educational Technology Lab. I appreciate that she has kept
hiring me as a lab manager for the past two years. As I communicated and worked with her every
day, I learned so many things and felt thankfulness. She made me become a good manager and
motivated to proceed with small and big projects that I planned and wished to conduct in the lab.
As a result, the lab became a special and pleasant place to work, study, and interact with others. I
thank all lab GAs that I have been working with: Diana, Wei, Sandy, Mapopa, Aimee, Xin, Brian,
David, Elza, Andy, and Lan. They made me view things in different perspectives, inspired me to
come up with the current research topic, and provided important inputs for this research. I am
also thankful to all IDT friends who shared resources and cheered me all the time.
Lastly and most importantly, I thank my parents, Jun Sub Park and Young Soon Lee, and
my sister, Soyoun Park for their endless love, support and prayer. I want to thank my
grandmother and all my relatives who have cheered me and prayed for my success. I thank my
husband, Giyoung Jeong. He has been a great supporter and listener. I cannot describe how much
he has been patient as I pursued my goal and concentrated on my research. As a person who
experienced this tough journey and achieved the degree before me, he understood me well and
provided lots of advices. I have to admit and recognize his inputs and great influences on my
success. I also want to thank my father-in-law and mother-in-law who care for our healthy and
happy life. I would like to close this acknowledgement with God who always guides my way,
gives strength, and allows me to meet such good people as described above.

v
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of Study and Research Questions .......................................................................... 5
Significance of Study .......................................................................................................... 6
Organization of Document .................................................................................................. 6
Chapter 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 8
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 8
Non-native English Speaking International Graduate Students .......................................... 8
Definitions and Characteristics ............................................................................... 8
Adjustment Process: Longitudinal Investigation .................................................. 11
Dimensions of Adjustment: Multivariate Investigation ........................................ 13
Summary ............................................................................................................... 22
Intercultural Communicative Competence for NNS Graduate Students’ Academic
Success .............................................................................................................................. 22
Language Learning ............................................................................................... 23
Intercultural Communication ................................................................................ 27
Intercultural Communicative Competences .......................................................... 32
Summary ............................................................................................................... 39
Instructional Design Strategies for Socially Engaged Learning ....................................... 41
Social Learning Theory ......................................................................................... 42
Sociocultural and Cultural-Historical Activity Theory ......................................... 44

vi
Situated Learning Theory ..................................................................................... 46
Synthesis: Socially Engaged Learning.................................................................. 50
Summary ............................................................................................................... 54
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 57
Research Design ................................................................................................................ 57
Research Setting and Target Population ........................................................................... 58
Instrument ......................................................................................................................... 60
Part 1: Background Information ........................................................................... 61
Part 2: Intercultural Communicative Competences .............................................. 61
Part 3: Instructional Design Strategies for Socially Engaged Learning ............... 66
Research Quality: Validity and Reliability ....................................................................... 69
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 78
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 80
Research Limitations ........................................................................................................ 80
Chapter 4: Results ......................................................................................................................... 82
Research Participants ........................................................................................................ 82
Background Characteristics .............................................................................................. 82
Intercultural Communicative Competences ...................................................................... 91
Overall ICC Levels of NNS Graduate Students ................................................... 91
Perceived ICC Levels from Five Factors .............................................................. 92
Group Differences in ICC Levels of NNS Graduate Students ............................. 98
Other Competences for ICC Identified by Participants ...................................... 107
Instructional Strategies for Socially Engaged Learning ................................................. 110
Overall Perception about ID Strategies of SEL .................................................. 110

vii
Gradual Engagement and Active Participation ................................................... 111
Rich Cultural Context ......................................................................................... 113
Self-Regulation and Learning Ownership .......................................................... 115
Integration of Communication Tools .................................................................. 118
Other Important Strategies Perceived by NNS Graduate Students ..................... 119
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion ....................................................................................... 124
Major findings and Instructional Design Implications ................................................... 124
Thread 1: Diversity of NNS Graduate Students ................................................. 125
Thread 2: High Overall ICC Level Perceived by NNS Graduate Students ........ 126
Thread 3: Positive Perception about ID strategies for SEL ................................ 132
Instructional Design Implications for Culturally Diverse Students ................................ 141
Contributions of the Study .............................................................................................. 143
References ................................................................................................................................... 148
Appendix A Survey Instrument ................................................................................................. 159
Appendix B Cover Letter and Questions for Expert Review .................................................... 165
Appendix C Resources utilized for developing the survey ........................................................ 169
Appendix D IRB Approval ........................................................................................................ 176
Appendix E Text for Informed Consent Form for Survey Participant ...................................... 177
Appendix F Survey Invitation Letter via Listserv ..................................................................... 179

viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Background Characteristics of International Graduate Students at Virginia Tech ........ 59
Table 2: Research Questions and Survey Items ........................................................................... 60
Table 3: Factors and Descriptions for Survey Items of Intercultural Communicative
Competences .................................................................................................................. 62
Table 4: Descriptions for Survey Items Indicating Instructional Design Strategies for Socially
Engaged Learning .......................................................................................................... 67
Table 5: Demographic Information of Survey Participants ......................................................... 83
Table 6: Academic Discipline Background of Survey Participants ............................................. 85
Table 7: College Proportion Comparison of Survey Participants with the Target Population .... 86
Table 8: Cultural Origins of Survey Participants ......................................................................... 87
Table 9: Nationality Proportion Comparison of Survey Participants with the Target Population
........................................................................................................................................ 88
Table 10: Previous Job Experiences and Years of Living in U.S. ............................................... 89
Table 11: Previous Language Preparation and Intercultural Experience ..................................... 90
Table 12: ICC level perceived by NNS Graduate Participants .................................................... 92
Table 13: Five Factors of ICC Perceived by NNS Graduate Participants ................................... 92
Table 14: Attitude Perceived by NNS Graduate Participants ...................................................... 93
Table 15: Skills Perceived by NNS Graduate Participants .......................................................... 94
Table 16: Awareness and Knowledge Perceived by NNS Graduate Participants ....................... 95
Table 17: Adaptability and Flexibility perceived by NNS Graduate Participants ....................... 96
Table 18: Communication Ability Perceived by NNS Graduate Participants ............................. 97
Table 19: ICC level Differences across Demographic Backgrounds .......................................... 98
Table 20: Different Levels of ICC Sub Factors across Demographic Backgrounds ................... 99
Table 21: ICC level Differences across Academic Discipline Background ............................... 100
Table 22: Sub-Factors of ICC Level Differences across Academic Discipline Background ..... 101
Table 23: ICC Level Differences across Cultural Origins .......................................................... 102
Table 24: Sub-Factors of ICC Level Differences across Cultural Origins ................................. 103

ix
Table 25: ICC Level Differences across Previous Experiences ................................................. 105
Table 26: Sub Factors of ICC across Previous Experiences ....................................................... 106
Table 27: Perceived Effectiveness on ID Strategies for Socially Engaged Learning ................. 111
Table 28: Perceived Effectiveness of Gradual Engagement and Active Participation ............... 112
Table 29: Differences of Perceived Effectiveness about Gradual Engagement across Students’
Nationality .................................................................................................................. 112
Table 30 Perceived Effectiveness about Rich Cultural Context ................................................. 114
Table 31 Differences of Perceived Effectiveness of Rich Cultural Context across Students’
Backgrounds ............................................................................................................... 115
Table 32 Perceived Effectiveness about Self-regulation ........................................................... 117
Table 33 Differences of Perceived Effectiveness of Self-regulation across Students’ Background
.................................................................................................................................... 118
Table 34 Perceived Effectiveness of Integration of Communication Tools .............................. 119

x
List of Figures
Figure 1. U-curve and W-curve: a social adjustment process of NNS graduate students ........... 12
Figure 2. Relevant dimensions and components to assess NNS graduate students’ ICC ............. 37
Figure 3. Theoretical backgrounds and notions of socially engaged learning .............................. 50
Figure 4. A method for annotating the resources utilized for developing survey items ............... 66

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Background
A university is an academic place with a variety of students from different cultures.
Around one-third of the world’s international students choose United States (U.S.) universities to
study abroad (Zikopoulos, 1991). The Institute of International Education (IIE) in its open door
report (IIE, 2008) indicates that the total number of international students enrolled in U.S.
universities is currently 623,805, including 276,842 international graduate students. The
increasing number of international students studying in the U.S. confirms that the U.S. is a
leading country of international education (Arthur, 2004; IIE, 2008).
International education provides some benefits to non-native English speaking (NNS)
international graduate students. Specifically, they can fulfill their personal and educational
aspirations (Ku, Lahman, Yeh, & Cheng, 2008). They can experience cross-cultural learning,
have professional research opportunities, build their teaching abilities, and achieve expertise in
their specific academic field. Despite these benefits, there are many challenges. They must face
cultural differences, adjust to the new environment, develop language proficiency, and build new
social relationships. These challenges impact the learning efficiency (Huang, 1998), self-esteem
(Al-Sharideh & Goe, 1998), anxiety level (S. Zimmerman, 1995), and academic performance of
NNS graduate students (Brooks & Adams, 2002; Poyrazli & Kavanaugh, 2006).
Among many difficulties, the core problem is the lack of sufficient communication skills
in English because it is associated with other factors already described. While communication
skills are important for all graduate students’ academic success (Enright & Gitomer, 1989), NNS
graduate students tend to struggle with socially and culturally appropriate communication. They
lack an understanding of cultural context (Bennett, 1993), fear group discussion (A. Jones,

2
Issroff, & Scanlon, 2006), and express uncertainty in communicating with native English
speakers (Chiang & Mi, 2008).
Intercultural communicative competence (ICC) is an ability that NNS graduate students
need to consider. As Byram (1997) stated, ICC is “the qualities required of the sojourner” (p. 3).
It is a set of complex abilities for those who enter a second language and culture to interact
successfully with people of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Fantini, 2006). The
recent definition of ICC, commonly supported by many other approaches to ICC, is “the ability
to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s
intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (Deardorff, 2007, pp. 87-88). Deardorff (2007)
notes that ICC begins with attitudes, such as respect, openness, curiosity and discovery; it tends
to move from individual level to interaction level, such as internal adaptability and flexibility,
and external communication ability in intercultural situations; and the degree of ICC depends on
the degree of attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Models explaining the concepts of ICC present its
iterative, ecological and gradually developed attributes (Deardorff, 2007; Fantini, 2006; Y. Kim,
1988; Spitzberg, 1994).
Unfortunately, existing instructional design (ID) models do not specifically indicate ICC
as an important consideration that instructional designers should analyze and consider in the
instructional design process. However, any ID model regards learner analysis as an important
process. As an example, the Dick, Carey and Carey model (2005), a widely cited systematic ID
model, indicates that instructional designers should systematically analyze the specific target
learners or audiences for whom the instruction is designed. Like other characteristics such as
gender, age, learning style, and previous experience, ICC can be an important learner factor to
analyze. In this regard, Branch (1997) already stated that some ID models, including the

3
Analysis-Design-Development-Implementation-Evaluation (ADDIE) model, the Dick, Carey &
Carey model, and Gagne’s nine events, offer the opportunity to consider “culture” or “cultural
pluralism” during the process of instructional design. Another systematic ID model, by Smith
and Ragan (1993), provides four categories of learner characteristics: stable similarities, stable
differences, changing similarities, and changing differences. In regard to learners’ changing and
different characteristics, these authors indicate their values, beliefs, motivations, and interests,
which are devolved from psychosocial and moral stages of development, should be included in
the learner analysis process. Smith and Ragan (1993) state:
If the designer is creating instruction for a national or international population, it is clear
that these affective characteristics may vary greatly based on cultural mores. In order to
make learning relevant and meaningful, it is important for the designer to obtain
information on these values, beliefs and interests (p. 53).
In reviewing ID models that emphasize systematic analysis of learners, it has been well
documented that instructional designers should understand diverse learners’ abilities and cultural
characteristics and apply them in their instructional design strategies. In taking a systematic
approach to analyzing target audiences and connecting the analysis with design strategies, this
study addresses a need to investigate NNS graduate students’ intercultural communicative
competence and effective instructional design strategies and technologies which can guide them
to be more socially engaged in learning and research in U.S. universities.
Socially engaged learning is an extended concept of engaged learning which establishes
the students, more positively, as active learners. This engagement requires a high level of learner
participation, responsibility for learning, learning with authentic tasks or problems, and
collaboration with other students in shared and flexible roles (Brill & Park, 2008; Bulger, Mayer,

4
& Almeroth, 2006; Hung, Tan, & Koh, 2006). Such a learning environment is especially
recommended for NNS graduate students because previous research findings report that they
present a lower level of engagement and participation in social discourse and they tend to be
passive in class discussion due to their linguistic limitations and cultural differences (Hlas, Schuh,
& Alessi, 2008; Yildiz & Bichelmeyer, 2003). As theoretical background of socially engaged
learning, this study reviewed three social theories of learning including (1) social learning theory
(Bandura, 1977), explaining an individual’s social and psychological functioning; (2)
sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and activity theory (Engeström, 1987; Leont'ev, 1978),
explaining social and cultural impacts on learning; and (3) situated learning theory (Brown,
Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991), emphasizing the effect of gradual involvement
in the specific community of practice. In synthesizing the critical concepts from the social
theories of learning, socially engaged learning indicates a learning environment in which learners
are gradually involved in the rich cultural context, learners’ self-regulative ability is encouraged
for active participation, and communication tools are effectively and appropriately integrated in
the intercultural learning situation. This study investigated how NNS graduate students perceive
the effectiveness of the approaches and instructional strategies derived from these social learning
theories.
Several instructional design and technology (IDT) scholars (G. Powell, 1997; Subramony,
2004) point out the lack of research on culturally diverse or minority students like NNS graduate
students. Previous research on NNS graduate students calls attention to their linguistic and
cultural challenges (Baek & Damarin, 2008; Ku, et al., 2008). Few instructional design
guidelines exist and no research is available to guide instructional designers or instructors in

5
preparing their NNS graduate students to study more effectively and have more valuable
intercultural experiences while attending a U.S. university.
Purpose of Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this research is to describe NNS graduate students’ characteristics and to
suggest effective instructional design strategies for them to become more socially engaged and
successful in their studies in U.S. graduate programs. For this purpose, this study focuses on
investigating those students’ perceptions on intercultural communicative competence (ICC) and
effective instructional strategies for socially engaged learning. The research questions are the
following:
1. What are the perceptions of NNS graduate students in regard to their intercultural
communicative competence?
2. What are the perceptions of NNS graduate students in regard to the instructional
strategies for their socially engaged learning?
These two questions are intended to embody important instructional design strategies for NNS
graduate students into the previously existing instructional design models.
This study utilizes a descriptive and a quantitative method. In using a web-based survey
instrument, the study will produce a description of the characteristics of NNS graduate students
studying in the U.S. The description will include their perceptions of intercultural
communicative competence and instructional design strategies for their socially engaged learning
with quantitative data across other learner characteristics such as gender, age, degree, nationality,
native language, academic discipline, amount of work experience, number of years in the U.S.,
pre-arrival language preparation, and prior intercultural experiences.

6
Significance of Study
Findings from this research can provide direct and practical help to two groups of people.
First, the outcomes of this study can help instructional designers and instructors in higher
education to improve instructional design for socially engaged learning due to a better
understanding of the perceptions and instructional needs of NNS graduate students. Second, the
results of this study can help current and potential NNS graduate students to recognize and
overcome their linguistic and cultural challenges, improve their level of ICC, and achieve their
educational goals.
This research can contribute to three intellectual areas: instructional design and
technology, second language education, and intercultural education. First, this study can provide
a model to the instructional design and technology field for using ICC as a lens to better
understand NNS graduate students, their unique characteristics, needs, and desires in relation to
international study. Based on this study, further research can expand the use of ICC by IDT
professionals in other similar situations including the culturally diverse workplace. Second, this
research can inform second language educators about effective design strategies in language
instruction for NNS students who enroll in graduate-level programs. Lastly, this study can
contribute to developing and evaluating intercultural education programs and services for NNS
graduate students in higher education.
Organization of Document
This document consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 provides the background of research,
purpose of the study, research questions, and significance of the study. Chapter 2 includes the
literature review with three sub-sections: NNS graduate students, intercultural communicative
competence for NNS graduate students’ academic success, and instructional design strategies for

7
NNS graduate students’ socially engaged learning. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology of this
research including the general design of the study, research setting and target participants,
instrumentation, research quality, data collection and analysis, and research limitations. Chapter
4 reports the results of the collected and analyzed data including the background characteristics
of research participants, their perceived intercultural communicative competences, and the
perceived effectiveness of instructional strategies for socially engaged learning. The final chapter
includes a discussion of major findings from the research, instructional design implications for
NNS graduate students, contributions of the study, and recommendations for future research.

8
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to discover instructional design implications for NNS
graduate students in the U.S. This chapter provides a review of literature in three relevant areas:
(a) non-native English speaking graduate students; (b) intercultural communication as a critical
competence for their academic success; and (c) effective instructional design strategies for their
socially engaged learning.
Non-native English Speaking International Graduate Students
The goal of this section is to understand the characteristics of non-native English
speaking (NNS) international graduate students as the target subjects of the proposed study. This
study explores three academic areas: second language education, higher education, and
international education. A review of the literature compiled from these areas describes: (1)
definitions and characteristics of NNS graduate students, (2) the students’ adjustment process,
and (3) dimensions of adjustment.
Definitions and Characteristics
NNS graduate students are referred to by a number of terms, which implies multiple
characteristics. The common characteristics can be distilled into three points: (1) the students are
non-native English speakers including English as Second Language (ESL) learners or English as
Foreign Language (EFL) learners; (2) they are international students studying abroad, in contrast
with local or domestic students who were born and grew up in the host country; and (3) they
have clear purposes and goals as graduate students enrolled in masters, doctoral or other

9
professional programs. These three points will be described in greater detail below in order to
make the subjects of this research clear and specific.
First, non-native English speakers constitute a distinct group from the native English
speakers who “learned English as their first language, regardless of ethnicity” (Yildiz &
Bichelmeyer, 2003, p. 180). Those non-native English speakers are referred to as ESL or EFL
learners. Although the terms ESL and EFL are generally used interchangeably and often
regarded as synonyms, second language learning scholars argue that a differentiation should be
made for pedagogical purposes (Nayar, 1997).
Efforts to distinguish between these two labels are long-standing, and although some
practitioners become confused about terms, the currently recognized distinction seems to depend
on the environment in which the actual English language learning occurs. According to Shrum
and Glisan (2005), while “ESL educators teach in countries where English is the dominant
language such as Australia, Canada, England, and the United States … EFL educators teach in
countries where English is spoken only as a foreign language, such as Japan and Saudi Arabia”
(p. 3). In applying this distinction, ESL students are those who learn English in the context (or
country) where English is the dominant language and EFL students are those who learn English
in the context (or country) where English is a secondary or foreign language. Such a distinction
is sometimes made for the convenience of research. For example, in the research regarding
forum participation of international graduate students, Yildiz and Bichelmeyer (2003) describe
the difference thus:
[ESL learners as students] who learned English in an English-speaking country when
they were still children and lived in the U.S. for most of their lives…[and EFL learners]

10
as students who learned English in a country where English is not the native language
and who lived in the U.S. less than 5 years (p. 180).
According to Zimmerman (1995), the number of years that students live in U.S. is unimportant
and an inaccurate measure to distinguish between ESL and EFL students. However,
terminological distinctions discussed above indicate that the subjects of this study are mainly
EFL learners.
Second, the target subjects are foreign or international students who are often contrasted
with domestic students. They are also categorized as nonresident aliens. The distinction depends
on their social or visa status while living in the host country. An international student holding a
Foreign student F1 Visa is technically defined as one “who [is] enrolled in courses at institutions
of higher education in the United States who is not a citizen or an immigrant” (Zikopoulos, 1991,
p. iv). As this definition indicates, he or she stays in the host country for only a short time
(Lacina, 2002) and is in a transitional stage for educational purposes (Mori, 2000). Although the
term “study abroad students” refers to those who are in many different programs such as degree
programs, exchange programs or language intensive programs (Lee, 2005), the focus of this
research is limited to degree programs.
Lastly, the students targeted in this study have clear purposes and goals as graduate
students who are enrolled in masters, doctoral or professional programs. As Schinke, da Costa,
and Andrews (2001) note, the purpose of graduate programs is “to prepare students to become
scholars, leaders, and professionals who will be responsible for the advancement of knowledge
and the continued functioning of society” (p. 342). Thus, regardless of whether they are
international or domestic students, they take responsibility for and are committed to their own
academic and professional performance.

11
In summary, the NNS graduate student embodies multiple identities and unique
characteristics as an English learner, an international student, a foreigner or sojourner, a study
abroad student, a graduate student, and a future professional. The critical point that makes NNS
graduate students distinct is that they must go through a multi-dimensional and transitional
adjustment process in the new environment which is different from the milieu into which they
were born and matured. The following two sections describe their adjustment process over time
(longitudinal investigation) and adjustment dimensions (multivariate investigation).
Adjustment Process: Longitudinal Investigation
Research on people who enter into a new environment sheds light on their cultural shock
and enculturation processes. As an early work, Oberg (1960) proposes four stages in regard to
the process of adjustment: honeymoon, regression, adjustment, and recovery. Sojourners tend to
be fascinated by the new environment in the first stage, but a few weeks later they confront the
real conditions with which they have trouble, such as unfamiliar food, housing, transportation,
and shopping customs. In this stage, they realize that people in the host country do not recognize
all their troubles and they may have feelings of helplessness, anger, and hostility, and even
develop an aggressive attitude toward the host country (Oberg, 1960). After the second stage,
they try to overcome their difficulties and admit that such difficulties are something that they
have to manage. If they successfully overcome their aggression and frustration, usually through a
great deal of trial and error, they finally become effectively well-adjusted and reach the final
stage where they can understand pertinent social cues.
The stages described are referred to as a U-curve (see Figure 1) because they reflect the
peaks and valleys of mental difficulties during adjustment (Adler, 1975). Many researchers have
applied this theory in the case of international students who inevitably experience the adjustment

12
process in their new academic life. Since many international students finally go back to their
home countries, researchers point out that they may experience another U-curve of readjustment
to their native culture; consequently, their adjustment line resembles a W-curve (Cigularova,
2005).
Figure 1. U-curve and W-curve: a social adjustment process of NNS graduate students
Similar to the general U and W-curve models, Adler (1975) explains five transitional
phases: contact, disintegration, reintegration, autonomy, and independence. This model mainly
focuses on the students’ psychological and sociocultural adjustment processes and changes in
identity and personality. According to Adler (1975), transitional experience is “a movement from
a state of low self- and cultural awareness to a state of high self- and cultural awareness” (p. 15).
In applying Alder’s five phases, NNS graduate students begin to perceive the similarities
and differences between the home culture and the host culture. They keep their identity, role and
personality when they find similar cultural elements. As they go into the disintegration phase,
they noticeably recognize the cultural differences and feel emotional difficulties “being different,
isolated, and inadequate to new situational demands” (Adler, 1975, p. 16). In the reintegration
phase, they strongly reject the new culture, seek relationships with people who have the same
cultural background, find ways to resolve their stressful situation, and finally acquire the ability
to control their negative feelings. After this phase, students become more sensitive to the second

13
culture, comfortable with their status, capable of understanding others, able to use appropriate
language, and eventually able to function in their roles “as insider - outsider in two different
cultures” (Adler, 1975, p. 17). Through this phase students achieve a growth of personal
flexibility. In the final phase, students reach the capacity to live independently in the second
culture and even enjoy the new life. It is noticeable that they become “humorous, creative, and
… capable of putting meaning into situations” (Adler, 1975, p. 18)
Adler (1975) pointed out that the individuals who have deep cross-cultural experiences
and go through significant transitional processes must undergo “learning, self-development, and
personal growth” (p. 20). That is, such transitional experiences inevitably bring individuals much
frustration and many challenges; however, when they overcome the frustration successfully, they
can experience significant personal growth with a multi-cultural identity.
Dimensions of Adjustment: Multivariate Investigation
Scholars have used various terms in addressing the concept of adjustment to a non-native
culture including enculturation, acculturation, adaptation, assimilation, integration, cross-cultural
adjustment, and the development of intercultural competence. Definitions of intercultural
competence by scholars and practitioners commonly indicate an individual’s willingness and
capacity to: (1) learn the host language and culture; (2) modify one’s own cultural ways, adopt
new ways, and therefore transform one’s worldview; and (3) manage the dynamics from cultural
differences and stressors (Fantini, 2006; Y. Kim, 1988). Classifications include a general model
indicating living, academic, sociocultural, and psychological adjustment (Cigularova, 2005;
Stoynoff, 1997; Tseng & Newton, 2002); dimension-based classification indicating cognitive,
affective, social, and behavioral aspects (Y. Kim, 1988; S. Zimmerman, 1995); outstanding
issue-based classification indicating language proficiency, cultural distance, social support, and

14
personality (Huang, 1998; Ren, Bryan, Min, & Wei, 2007; Trice, 2003); and psychology focused
classification indicating identity, self-esteem, anxiety, and satisfaction (Al-Sharideh & Goe,
1998).
This section will describe intercultural competence in terms of five dimensions: (1)
social, (2) cultural, (3) cognitive, (4) psychological, and (5) personal.
Social dimension. This dimension is related to students’ sociability including social ties
with members in the host culture and social ties with co-cultural members. Professionals in
student affairs of universities or counselors for international students are typically concerned
with students’ sociability issues in relation to their satisfaction and retention (Al-Sharideh &
Goe, 1998; Cigularova, 2005; Lacina, 2002). The following summarizes findings from some
empirical studies.
First, frequent interactions with people in the host country have a positive impact on
international students’ satisfaction with communication. A research study conducted by
Zimmerman (1995) indicates that interaction of international students with American students is
related to both students’ satisfaction with communication and adjustment. This research indicates
that social ties with American native speakers help international students not only to improve
communication skills but also to increase their satisfaction with the communication.
Consequently, such positive outcomes help students’ overall adjustment.
Second, social relations impact students’ academic satisfaction. Perrucci and Hu’s (1995)
research supports the conclusion that academic satisfaction is strongly related to contact with
American students, language skill, and perceived discrimination. In this research, academic
satisfaction is conceptualized by satisfaction with the academic program and the academic
appointment. The former includes relations with a major professor and American graduate

15
students, the quality of instruction in courses, counseling or advising from faculty, and the
international student services office. The latter includes a teaching and research appointment,
financial assistance, and relations with undergraduates.
Third, international students need interaction with co-cultural members who have the
same cultural origins but require a balance between native and host cultures. Al-Sharideh and
Goe (1998) investigate the level of adjustment between two groups: 1) students who have strong
ties with co-cultural associates and 2) students with three or fewer social relations from their
home countries. This study reveals that strong ties with people of the same cultural background
play an important role for international students to maintain high self-esteem and adjust within
an American university. However, authors warn that international students who rely heavily on
their co-cultural associations may face “the dilemma of balancing life within two different social
contexts” (Al-Sharideh & Goe, 1998, p. 720) and a negative influence on their self-esteem; thus,
they need to socialize with both co-culturals and Americans.
Cognitive dimension. This dimension is related to students’ cognitive load due to the lack
of host language proficiency. Human beings have limited working memory. Thus, although NNS
students have studied the host language for a long time, they still have cognitive challenges when
they use the target language in actual communication situations. Such difficulties impact
students’ academic performance. The following sections introduce three issues: impact of host
language proficiency, role of students’ pre-arrival language preparation, and technological
support to decrease cognitive load.
First, students’ host language proficiency directly impacts their academic performance.
Brooks and Adams (2002) investigated the relationship between students’ familiarity with
spoken English and their academic achievement through a class examination and survey using a

16
self-reported instrument to measure their English proficiency. Research results indicate that
international students speak English significantly less frequently than local students. For this
reason, academic achievement of international students is not as high as local students. This
research provides an implication that international students’ academic success is directly related
to their language proficiency but indirectly related to other variables such as social, cultural, and
psychological characteristics.
Additionally, students’ host language proficiency significantly impacts their learning
efficiency. Huang (1998) observed 18 Chinese and 14 American graduate students and indicated
that (1) anxiety level and anxiety duration of Chinese students studying in a U.S. university were
significantly higher than in their home country; (2) the anxiety level of international students was
significantly higher than that of native students; and (3) the group differences between native and
non-native speakers were in “connecting words” and “guessing”. The author suggested that
“while listening to the instructor, many international students mentally [connect] words with
words to make meaning, or [guess], whereas no American students [do] this” (p. 6). The author
reasoned that the learning difficulties of international students are caused by the “non-
automatization of the language (p. 8)” which impedes their ability to follow the lesson well.
A second issue, students’ pre-arrival language preparation, suggests that focusing on
practice with native speakers might be more helpful for their social and academic adjustment. In
a study conducted by Ren, Bryan, Min and Wei (2007), the participants in the study reported that
“making an intelligible speech or presentation were primary stressful experiences in the first year
of graduate study” (p. 17). Reasons that they feel difficulties in terms of their language problem
include having little practice in listening and speaking in large groups, difficulties with
understanding non-native speakers, and difficulties with fast speech and varied accents.

17
Although most participants have studied English early in their lives and completed several tests
to verify their English skills, the way English is taught in their countries does not contribute
much to their oral proficiency. This research necessitates pre-arrival English language
preparation that is more practically useful for their academic performance from their first year of
study on.
Third, since students’ non-automatization of language interferes with their learning
efficiency, instructional design and the appropriate use of technology can help decrease their
cognitive load. Huang (1998) explains that NNS students often need more time to encode all of
the external information, retrieve their previous knowledge to make sense of it, and prepare to
address thoughts and ideas. A study conducted by Hlas, Schuh, and Alessi (2008) provides an
insight about the consideration of such non-automatization of language. They observed diverse
international graduate students in a web-based course and in a traditional face-to-face course.
Their results indicated that while the NNS students were in the face-to-face course they did not
take as many turns as the native speakers in the conversation. However, while they were in the
online course NNS students contributed as equally as NS students. This research suggests that an
asynchronous function in online technology offers students time to have private reflection. It is
an example of how instructional design considerations along with the appropriate technological
support can be useful for NNS students’ learning.
Cultural dimension. This dimension is related to students’ perceptions about cultural
differences between their home cultures and host cultures. Generally, the greater the difference
between two cultures, the more difficult the international adjustment will be (Mendenhall &
Wiley, 1994). Culture related variables include students’ different ethnicities, originating
regions, cultural beliefs, religions, and use of technology. The following sections introduce three

18
culture related points: previous educational system, cultural orientation, and cultural symbols in
information and communication technologies.
First, students’ cultural values formed in their previous educational system impact on
communication style and pattern in the classroom setting. In a qualitative study conducted by
Ren, Bryan, Min, and Wei (2007) with 12 East Asian international graduate students,
participants commented that their previous learning experiences in their home countries were
teacher-centered and lecture-centered in nature, which left them unfamiliar with speaking freely
during class in a U.S. classroom setting. In another qualitative study, Liu (2001) observed the
classroom communication of 20 Asian international graduate students, and categorized it into
four kinds of communication patterns: total integration, conditional participation, marginal
interaction, and silent observation. The author reports that such different patterns depend on
students’ perception of the value of their participation in the classroom.
Second, students’ cultural orientations and levels of communication context can
significantly impact their abilities to collaborate. Cultural orientation can be interpreted along a
continuum from individualism where individual identity is more important than group, to
collectivism where group identity is more important than individual (Ting-Toomey, 1989). The
levels of communication context can also be conceived of along a continuum from high context
(e.g., indirect, spiral, and implicit pattern) to low context (e.g., direct, linear, and explicit
communication pattern) (E. Hall, 1976). Different cultural orientations and levels of
communication context have been compared among various cultures. As an example, Kim, Pan,
and Park (1998) surveyed the levels of communication context among Korean, Chinese, and
American people. The authors indicated that Chinese and Korean people appeared to be more
socially oriented, were more likely to avoid confrontation, and had more trouble dealing with

19
new situations than Americans. However, cultural differences have not been empirically studied
in regard to students’ learning and collaborative skills, thus requiring further research.
Third, students’ different perceptions of cultural symbols in information communication
technologies (ICTs) impact their understanding of meaning. Young (2008b) highlights that
design elements in ICTs can be interpreted differently among people whose cultural backgrounds
vary. As an example, she states that graphic symbols can be generic such as an arrow mark “go
left or go right” or specialized such as a frog mark which is a Native American symbol for water.
Thus, Young (2008a) suggests that such “cultural remnants,” including: racial, ethnic, cultural,
linguistic, political, social, historical, educational, and economic artifacts, should be translated
into a generalized form for the broader audience.
Psychological dimension. The psychological dimension is related to students’ self-esteem
and anxiety levels. Such indicators have been utilized for the prediction of their social
adjustment and linguistic burden (Al-Sharideh & Goe, 1998; Huang, 1998; S. Zimmerman,
1995).
First, as international graduate students adjust, they demonstrate higher self-esteem. Self-
esteem is defined by “an individual’s attitude toward the self as a totality” (as cited in Al-
Sharideh & Goe, 1998, p. 701; Rosenberg, 1979). Al-Sharideh and Goe (1998) highlight how
students’ self-esteem influences their academic performance and persistence, which is more
distinctive in international student cases.
Second, NNS international students’ satisfaction with their communication impacts the
level of anxiety generated when they communicate with native speakers in English. In Huang’s
(1998) study of Chinese international graduate students and American graduate students, the
anxiety level and anxiety duration was measured in order to compare students’ various feelings

20
and attitudes in regard to their first-year graduate classroom activities. The findings indicated
that Chinese students’ lack of academic background and language proficiency significantly
impact the length and severity of anxiety. In Zimmerman’s (1995) study, international students’
affective dimension of adjustment was measured by their comfort or anxiety generated when
they communicated with other English speakers in various campus contexts such as
communication with university staff, small group interactions in their classes, and class
discussions. The findings indicated that when international students are satisfied with their
communication skills, they can more enjoy working in small groups, feel more comfortable
participating in class discussion, and perceive the university as a friendly educational
environment.
Personal dimension. This dimension is related to students’ personality and other
demographic factors such as gender, marital status, age, and level of degree program (doctoral or
masters), major, and GPA. These items have been considered as factors impacting students’
social adjustment and academic success.
First, students’ personal characteristics can affect their adjustment. Examples of
personality include “flexibility, humor, patience, openness, interest, curiosity, empathy, tolerance
for ambiguity, and suspending judgment” (Fantini, 2005, p. 2). Cigularova (2005) explained that
although personal assertiveness is highly valued in U.S. society and classrooms, international
students from certain countries are significantly less assertive than U.S. students. However,
personality-related research in regard to NNS students’ adjustment and academic performance
has not been empirically verified. Zimmerman (1995) indicated that NNS students’ flexibility is
related to their satisfaction with communication but not significantly related to their overall
adjustment.

21
Second, marital status, specific ethnicity, and level of degree program can impact
students’ adjustment strain with their language proficiency. In surveying 149 international
graduate students attending five U.S. universities, Poyrazli and Kavanaugh (2006) found that
married students have lower levels of social adjustment strain; Asian students and students who
are at a lower level of English proficiency have more adjustment strain; and masters students
have more adjustment strain due to lack of English communication skill and academic
background.
Third, the nature of the academic discipline requires different levels of intercultural
competence and language proficiency. Trice (2003) investigated faculty perceptions about
international graduate students across four departments: architecture, public health, mechanical
engineering, and materials science and engineering. The author pointed out some international
graduate student challenges commonly observed by faculty members, including functioning in
English, achieving unique academic goals, adjusting culturally, and integrating with American
students. The degree of such challenges varies by the nature of the discipline such as hard or soft,
pure or applied, and life vs. nonlife disciplines (Biglan, 1973, as cited in Trice, 2003). The
finding of Trice’s (2003) study indicated that professors in some departments such as mechanical
engineering observed very few differences between international and domestic students while
professors in other departments such as architecture observed that international students have
unique academic and personal issues. In addition, faculty members in the public health area
addressed the problem of segregation of domestic and international students, caused partially by
their language differences. The author pointed out that no faculty member in other departments
marked this issue. She explained that the small population of international students in a
department like the public health area (18%) may impact such segregation issues.

22
Summary
In this section, unique characteristics of NNS graduate students, their adjustment
processes, and multiple adjustment dimensions have been articulated. The fact that they are non-
native English speakers, international students, and graduate students creates multilayered
challenges. The challenges and adjustment processes occurring as they live in the U.S. and study
in their graduate program have been described along longitudinal and multivariate perspectives.
The issues are complex and interrelated. However, an important factor in satisfaction and
academic success appears to be communication in the host culture. Thus, communicative
competence will be discussed in detail in the next section. Furthermore, NNS student
characteristics, participants, adjustment process, and adjustment dimensions described in this
section can be used to: (1) identify research participants; (2) develop the questions to ask of
research participants; and (3) sensitize the researchers to important participant experiences and
perspectives.
Intercultural Communicative Competence for NNS Graduate Students’ Academic Success
Appropriate communication skills are important for successful academic achievement at
the graduate level. In order to be a successful graduate student, one must be able to communicate
“one’s ideas, knowledge, and insights with others… one must be able to reason from different
viewpoints, follow appropriate communicative protocols, and tailor the communication to the
audience” (Enright & Gitomer, 1989, p. 17). As this description indicates, communication is not
a simple set of knowledge and skills about language or communication per se. Rather it requires
the pragmatic ability to apply language so that one can readily use the competence in one’s
academic context.

23
Communicative competence is a critical factor for the social adjustment, academic
achievement, and successful intercultural experience of NNS graduate students. This section
aims to define the competences that NNS graduate students need the most so as to create an
effective intercultural learning environment. Literature from two areas, language learning and
intercultural communication, is used to describe the definition and origin of communicative
competence, and more narrowly, intercultural communicative competence.
Language Learning
Points of interest. Focal points of language learning and teaching are “how do people
learn language” and “what does it mean to know a language” (Shrum & Glisan, 2005, p. 11). A
number of linguists, sociolinguists, and language teachers have explained various notions about
human language acquisition and communication. Among them, two perspectives are remarkable.
One is that human beings inherently and biologically have linguistic capacity (Chomsky, 1965).
Because humans are born with a “language acquisition device (LAD), … [they have] intuitive
knowledge of rules of grammar and syntax and of how the linguistic system of a language
operates” (Shrum & Glisan, 2005, pp. 12-13). Another perspective is that human beings acquire
the linguistic capacity through social and cultural activities (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986). Thus,
language requires one to not only learn words and grammar but also to comprehend the social
context in which such words are used (Hymes, 1972).
Competence and performance. The two perspectives described above are interdependent
in explaining human language ability. An implication from both perspectives is that “regardless
of …their first or second language… language works as a system” (Shrum & Glisan, 2005, p.
13) where a human’s intrinsic linguistic capacity and social practices in real contexts are
interacting with each other. While the former is an innate quality, the latter is an acquired and

24
developed one in life. These two perspectives help to understand the difference between
competence and performance. While competence is the underlying knowledge and skill set that
an ideal speaker and listener might possess, performance is the actual behavior that he or she
demonstrates in a variety of settings expanding beyond linguistic competence (Chomsky, 1965).
Chomsky’s linguistic view. The original term “competence” in language was first
mentioned by Chomsky (1965). Wardhaugh (2006) pointed out that Chomsky was “the most
influential figure in late twentieth-century linguistics” (p. 2) and he is famous for the deep
analysis of linguistic structure and grammar including syntax (i.e., language structure in its finite
and restricted formats), and semantics (i.e., meaning of the language in its infinite and creative
parts in different contexts and situations). His transformational generative theory explains that
since a language consists of what is important (language universals) and what is unimportant
(language variations), if one knows the grammar of the language (important part), one can
understand the language and create an infinite set of sentences (Wardhaugh, 2006). This
perspective leads language teachers and students to focus on the grammar and the structure of
language. Sociolinguists and anthropological linguists argue that Chomsky’s view of language is
asocial; such a theory overlooks the social aspects of language and culture, so it is scarcely
worthwhile in the real world (Wardhaugh, 2006).
Hymes’ sociolinguistic view. Dell Hymes (1972) was one scholar who addressed the
importance of the social aspects of language. He argued that Chomsky’s view deals with the
internal side of language, so linguistic theory should add the dimension of sociocultural
perspectives. Hymes (1972) stated that:
A normal child acquires knowledge of sentences not only as grammatical but also as
appropriate. He or she acquires competence as to when to speak, when not, and as to

25
what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what manner. In short, a child becomes
able to accomplish a repertoire of speech acts, to take part in speech events, and to
evaluate their accomplishment by others. (pp. 278-279).
In adopting Hymes’ view, “the communicative competence implies not only knowing the
grammar, phonology, and lexicon of a language, but also knowing how to use language
effectively and appropriately, furthermore, participating in cross-cultural communication”
(Trudgill, 2003, p. 24).
Linguistic competence vs. communicative competence. Communicative competence is
distinguished from the perspective of linguistics in which internal and innate analyses of
language structure are the most important. Paulston (1974) expressed two such distinctive areas
as the “referential meaning of language” and the “social meaning of language” (p. 348).
Bialystok (1981) listed dichotomies between the formal and functional use of language: written
and oral forms of language, formal and informal learning environment, language learning and
language acquisition, standard and non-standard dialects, and linguistic and communicative
competence. Given the pairs above, Bialystok (1981) stated that “the first term of each pair
relates to formal language skill such as literacy and metalinguistic awareness and the second to
the communicative skills such as pragmatic or functional ability” (p. 62). Linguistic competence
is often interchangeably called grammatical competence and is characterized as asocial, tacit,
restricted, formal, innate, and standard. On the other hand, communicative competence,
expressed as “spontaneous expression” (Rivers, 1973, p. 26) or “social rules of language use”
(Paulston, 1974, p. 347), is featured as a dynamic, context specific, and relative concept
dependent on the participants in the communication system and manifested through written and
spoken language and other non-verbal sign systems (Savignon, 1983). Communicative

26
competence has been extended to the concepts of sociolinguistic competence and intercultural
competence.
Communicative competence model. The concept of communicative competence described
previously has significantly expanded over time for more than four decades. Essentially,
communicative competence is one’s capacity to use language effectively and appropriately. Such
ability is “intimately linked to one’s knowledge of social conditions as the setting, the
participants, and the goals or purposes for which the language is being used”. (Hymes 1964;
1972, as cited in J. Hall, 1999). Since this concept of communicative competence has settled
down among not only sociolinguists but also language teachers, there has been a great deal of
effort to build a representative model. Through many attempts (Bachman & Palmer, 1982;
Canale & Swan, 1980; Celce-Murcia, Dornyei, & Thurrell, 1995), the model has been revised
and elaborated.
Currently, the communicative competence model by Celce-Muricia and colleagues (1995)
is recognized as the most comprehensive one (J. Hall, 1999; Shrum & Glisan, 2005). This model
includes five essential and interrelated components of communicative competence: discourse,
sociocultural, linguistic, actional, and strategic competence. In borrowing the explanation of Hall
(1999) and Shrum and Glisan (2005), when students’ linguistic competence and sociocultural
competence are connected with their actional competence, they can arrange their language
elements into utterances through their discourse competence and can use strategic competence to
communicate smoothly or compensate for deficiencies.
An implication from the model is that all competences within this model are interrelated
and important. Thus, if one is lacking the sociocultural information in a certain situation, even
though one knows all the grammar of the language, one may not be able to participate

27
successfully in the discourse of communication. Or, without using correct grammar in the target
language, one may fail to convey the intention. In other words, as this model suggests, the NNS
student must develop these five kinds of competences with an appropriate level of balance in
order to be a successful communicator.
Communicative competence of NNS students. Traditional learning methods of NNS
graduate students have failed to help them to develop sufficient communicative competence. For
example, Bennett (1993) described NNS students who spoke English well but lacked the proper
cultural context to deal with complicated social situations. He called them “fluent fools” (p. 16).
Kim (2006) pointed out that international graduate students fear group discussions including
“participating in whole-class discussions, raising questions during class, and engaging in small-
group discussion (p. 479)” because they lack sociocultural and strategic communicative
competence. Chiang and Mi (2008) reported that international teaching assistants (TAs) have
problems communicating with American college students and attribute their uncertainty in
communicating to their lack of communicative competence.
To facilitate the success of NNS students, communicative competence should be
addressed in their academic preparation and performance. NNS students should be prepared to
understand contexts and cultural backgrounds (Bennett, 1993), use academic oral discussion
skills (S. Kim, 2006); and adopt appropriate reformulation strategies (Chiang & Mi, 2008). For
the NNS student, these suggestions highlight the importance of socially and culturally
appropriate communication, which is termed intercultural communication.
Intercultural Communication
Points of interest. When people who come from different cultural backgrounds gather in
one place, the different cultures and perceptions may interplay in their communication. This

28
phenomenon is the major interest of intercultural communication researchers. They have
attempted to discover how people from different cultures communicate and interact. They also
research how people adjust in a new culture (Asante & Gudykunst, 1989).
Importance of intercultural communication. Understanding intercultural communication
is especially important for three reasons. First, current classrooms are increasingly diverse in
terms of race and ethnicity. Powell and Andersen (1994) asserted that educators must understand
how culture influences classroom communication. Second, as information and communication
technologies (e.g., web, mobile, virtual word, etc.) advance, people can more frequently and
easily experience social contact with other cultures. The various cultures in the world are
increasingly more accessible than before (Samovar & Porter, 1994; Spitzberg, 1994). Third,
learning can occur not only within the classroom but also outside of it. As people develop a
broader perspective of learning they became aware of the value of a community of inquiry where
people with diverse cultural backgrounds and from diverse academic disciplines share their
interests and thoughts.
Definition of intercultural communication. Intercultural communication occurs
“whenever a message that must be understood is produced by a member of one culture for
consumption by a member of another culture” (Porter & Samovar, 1994, p. 19). Intercultural
conflicts occur where there is an incompatibility among people who have different
predispositions such as different values, knowledge, expectations, processes, or outcomes (Ting-
Toomey, 1994). In order to minimize communicative difficulties between different people,
researchers stress having knowledge about cultural differences, skill to manage the differences,
and attitudes of respect for other cultures.

29
Cultural differences. Intercultural communication scholars have attempted to categorize
several cultural differences, five of which are discussed in this section. First, the high-context
and low context culture continuum proposed by Hall (1976) explains cultural differences in
terms of general communication features. According to this theory, all communication consists
of high, low, or middle-context messages and the level of context plays an important role in
defining the nature of communication and the communicator’s characteristics. Such a distinction
is utilized as the way to understand cultural differences. Hall (1976) explained:
A high-context (HC) communication or message is one in which most of the information
is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the
coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message. A low-context (LC) communication is
just the opposite; i.e., the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code (p. 79).
An HC message has an indirect and spiral pattern; is seen as an art form with only minimal
information; and is reliant on a receiver’s prior knowledge and experience. In contrast, an LC
message has a linear and rule-oriented pattern; is carried in public, external, and accessible form;
and is explicit as transferable and task-centered knowledge.
Since the context levels lay along a continuum, Hall (1976) indicated “no cultures exist
exclusively at one end of the scale, some are high while others are low” (p. 79). Nevertheless,
Hall (1976) and Gudykunst (1983) indicated that the U.S. culture has the lowest context culture;
the German, Swiss and Scandinavian cultures have the next lowest context culture; and most
Asian cultures, such as Chinese, Korean, and Japanese have the highest context cultures.
Second, Gudykunst (1983) addressed the concept of uncertainty as an important element
when strangers communicate in the intercultural setting. According to Gudykunst, uncertainty is
the primary concern and causes communication difficulties when strangers encounter the

30
communication situation. Gudykunst (1983) related this concept with Hall’s HC and LC cultures
in an empirical and exploratory study in which participants were divided into LC and HC groups.
The results of this study indicated that “people in HC cultures are more cautious in initial
interactions and have a greater tendency to make assumptions based on a stranger’s cultural
background than do people in LC cultures” (Gudykunst, 1983, p. 49). Findings also indicate that
LC culture members appear to use background interrogation less to reduce uncertainty, while HC
culture members are intolerant of ambiguous situations and use background interrogation more.
Such an integration of the uncertainty concept and the notion of HC/LC communication helps to
understand the different communication patterns between people from different cultures. An
implication is to use such understanding to develop strategies for more effective intercultural
communication.
Third, the value orientation is another helpful and well-known distinction. Ting-Toomey
(1994) explained that individualism is revealed in the culture in which “individual identity over
group identity, individual rights over group rights, and individual needs over group needs” (pp.
360-361) are of great importance. In contrast, collectivism emphasizes “the importance of the
‘we’ identity over the ‘I’ identity, group obligations over individual rights, and ingroup-oriented
needs over individual wants and desires” (p. 361). The ingroup, i.e., from the same culture, refers
to the “group whose values, norms, and rules are deemed as salient to the effective functioning of
the group in the society and these norms serve as the guiding criteria for everyday behaviors” (p.
361). Therefore, “while the boundary conditions between ingroups and outgroups are fairly
diffused and loosely structured in individualistic cultures, [those] between ingroups and
outgroups, and between memberships in various ingroups, e.g., kin, coworkers, neighbors, are
more sharply defined and tightly structured in collectivistic cultures” (Triandis et al., 1986, cited

31
by Ting-Toomey, 1989, p. 353). Similar to the distinction between the HC and LC, Ting-
Toomey (1994) indicated that “Australia, Canada, and the Unites States have been identified
consistently as cultures high in individualistic value tendencies, while strong empirical evidence
has supported that China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and Mexico can be identified clearly as
collectivistic group-based cultures” (p. 361).
Fourth, how people manage their facial expressions in a conflict situation is another focal
point for understanding their group orientation. Ting-Toomey (1994) concluded that in
collectivistic HC cultures, typical conflicts occur due to incompatible face related management;
on the other hand, in individualistic LC cultures, conflicts typically arise due to incompatible
personalities, beliefs, or goal orientations. Since collectivistic HC cultures tend to maintain their
facial expressions in relation to other members in their ingroup and regard their words and
behaviors as a group-oriented status, “[they] are highly sensitive to the effect of what they say on
others… high-context speakers must weigh their words carefully…They know that whatever
they say will be scrutinized” (Cohen, 1991, p. 26, as cited in Ting-Toomey, 1994). As a result,
members in HC collectivistic cultures tend to give up their interests when it conflicts with their
group or social values. As Kim, Pan, and Park (1998) explained in their study, a well-known
Japanese saying, “a nail that stands out gets hammered down” (p. 510) demonstrates the high
value on social and group orientation.
Lastly, perspectives of time management differ between HC and LC cultures. Hall (1989)
distinguished a monochronic time schedule (T-time) and a polychronic time schedule (P-time).
While T-time refers to a pre-set time schedule, P-time is more flexible. Although perspectives on
time management might differ among individual people, Hall (1989) indicated that T-time
patterns are observed in individualistic LC cultures and P-time patterns are predominant in

32
group-based HC cultures. In relation to the classroom situation, Powell and Andersen (1994)
explained that “a western monochronic view of time also influenced the manner in which
curriculum is developed; classes and activities are structured according to a pre-established time
schedule” (p. 325). This view is in contrast with the perspective from other cultures suggesting
that time is managed by “when the subject matter has been thoroughly discussed rather than
when the clock designates the end of a period” (R. Powell & Andersen, 1994, p. 325).
Intercultural Communicative Competences
Intercultural communication is particularly important to NNS graduate students because
their academic success relies on their communicative competence (S. Zimmerman, 1995). As
diverse students from various countries work together, they naturally face cultural differences
which cause different communication patterns. While diversity can bring successful cross-
cultural information exchanges, cultural differences sometimes bring intercultural conflicts and
miscommunication. Thus, the development of intercultural communicative competence (ICC) is
important in order to minimize such conflicts and miscommunication (Gudykunst & Kim, 1997).
The following sections introduce the definition of ICC and models conceptualized by several
scholars.
Definition of ICC. Many scholars and researchers have attempted to define intercultural
communicative competence (ICC). Byram (1997) who defined ICC first, stated that ICC is “the
qualities required of the sojourner” (p. 3). He indicated ICC as a significantly extended concept
of communicative competence (Hymes, 1972). Byram (1997) pointed out that while Hymes’
main concern was “to analyze social interaction and communication within a social group using
one language”(p. 9) without considering much about cross-cultural communication, other
scholars such as Canale & Swan (1980), van Ek (1986) and the Council of Europe team

33
emphasized the social and cultural Competences. Especially, he was interested in the model of
six competences including linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse, strategic, sociocultural, and
social competence addressed by van Ek (1986); however, Byram (1997) was critical of many
scholars including van Ek (1986)who tended to view “the learner as an incomplete native
speaker … native speakers as a model” (p. 11). Byram (1997) argued that “the more desirable
outcome is a learner with the ability to see and manage the relationships between themselves and
their own cultural beliefs, and behaviors and meanings” (p.12).
In regard to various definitions of ICC and 30 years’ efforts to characterize ICC,
Deardorff (2007) summarized several perspectives including the “communicative nature of
intercultural competence, … developmental stage, …a combination of knowledge, skills, and
attitudes, … the situational aspects, and… broader definitions that encompass transnational or
global competence” (p. 86) with citations of many experts in this area. Thus, Deardorff (2007)
collected the key components of ICC from twenty intercultural experts by using a Delphi
research technique. Throughout the research, the top-rated definition of ICC was “the ability to
communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural
knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (Deardorff, 2007, pp. 87-88).
Models and components of ICC. Since scholars have defined ICC differently, the models
of ICC also highlight different focuses and include different components. Spitzberg (1994)
explained “communication will be competent in an intercultural context when it accomplishes
the objectives of an actor in a manner that is appropriate to the context and relationship” (p. 347).
In consideration of effective and appropriate communication between actor and co-actor, his ICC
model is constructed of three parts: the individual, the episodic, and the relational system. An
individual’s system includes motivation, knowledge of communication, and skills in

34
implementing his motivation and knowledge. An episodic system illustrates the interaction in
which actor and co-actor share the episode. The relational system helps a person’s competence
across “the entire span of relationships” (Spitzberg, 1994, p. 350). This model consists of
essential factors for successful intercultural communication. It demonstrates the ecological
attributes of the competence through three levels of analysis.
Kim (1988) specifically considered long-term immigrants and short-term sojourners who
experience intercultural conflicts. In this context, Kim (1988) conceptualized host
communication competence as including four dimensions: (1) knowledge of the host
communication system, (2) cognitive complexity, (3) affective co-orientation, and (4) behavioral
competence. First, knowledge of the host communication system includes knowledge of the host
language, host non-verbal behavior, and communication rules. Second, cognitive complexity
refers to how people perceive the host culture. As an indicator, an individual’s cognitive
flexibility implies “a capacity to be mentally flexible in dealing with ambiguity and
unfamiliarity” (Kim 1988, pp. 96-97). Third, affective co-orientation is the emotional drive or
reflexes toward a successful adaptation in the host environment. This element includes adaptive
motivation, affirmative self/emotional appreciation, and aesthetic/emotional appreciation.
Fourth, behavioral competence enables the activation of knowledge, cognitive and affective
elements.
Byram (1997) also built a model of intercultural communicative competence for the
purpose of teaching, assessment and certification. The model includes factors involved in
intercultural communication and relationships between factors. The model begins with a
situation where a person interacts socially with someone from a different country. The primary
focus of this model is on the interaction between native and non-native speakers or between two

35
non-native speakers. Byram (1997) stated that such “intercultural speakers” (p. 32) bring to the
communication their knowledge of the world to which they mainly belong and social identities
rendered by the world. In setting the purpose of communication as “the effective exchange of
information … establishing and maintenance of human relationships” (pp.32-33), he highlighted
four important factors: (1) knowledge, (2) attitudes, (3) skills of interpreting and relating, and (4)
skills of discovery and interaction. Although knowledge and attitude are pre-conditional factors,
those factors can be modified through the process in which each interlocutor brings different
skills to the interaction. Also, while skills of interpreting and relating indicate “the ability to
analyze data from one’s own and from another country and the potential relationships between
them, … skills of discovery and interaction can be operated in some circumstances
independently” (p. 33). In addition, Byram’s model emphasizes the integration of teaching for
intercultural communication within “a philosophy of political education and the critical cultural
awareness” (p. 33).
Fantini (2006) defined ICC as “the complex of abilities needed to perform effectively and
appropriately when interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally different from
oneself” (p.1 ). This definition carries two perspectives. While effectiveness refers to one’s own
view of one’s performance in a second language and culture, appropriateness refers to how one’s
own performance is perceived by one’s host (Fantini, 2006). Fantini (2006) investigated
intercultural experiences of volunteers in an international partnership program and summarized
the concept of ICC in five points. First, ICC is based on diverse characteristics related to one’s
personality such as openness, flexibility, and tolerance for ambiguity. Second, ICC measures
three abilities: building social relations, communicating clearly, and collaborating for a mutual
goal. Third, ICC includes knowledge, attitudes, skills, and awareness. Fourth, ICC is related to

36
proficiency in the host language. Lastly, ICC relies on developmental levels from educational
traveler to sojourner to professional, and to intercultural specialist.
Deardorff’s (2007) model, based on the items that received 80 to 100% agreement of the
top intercultural experts, highlights the iterative and cyclic features of the model. Deardorff
(2007) noted that ICC begins with attitudes, such as respect, openness, curiosity and discovery; it
tends to move from the individual level to the interaction level with features such as internal
adaptability, flexibility, and external communication ability in an intercultural situation. The
degree of ICC depends on the degree of attitudes, knowledge, and skills.
The models that describe ICC indicate its ecologically and gradually developed features
by (1) incorporating individual, social (or interactional), environmental factors, (2) covering
cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects, and (3) presenting increasing knowledge, skill and
attitude about (4) how to build relationships, communicate, and collaborate in the host culture
(Byram, 1997; Fantini, 2005, 2006; Y. Kim, 1988; Spitzberg, 1994). While Spitzberg’s model
covers a human’s general intercultural communication, Kim’s model and Fantini’s research
project focus on a specific population, people who enter into and adjust to a new environment
and have intercultural experiences. Unlike other models, Deardorff’s model explains the process
of how people develop intercultural competences from the individual to the interactional level.
Synthesis of ICC models. In a synthesis of the commonly accepted definition and
existing models, ICC includes individual, interactional, and social aspects. The individual
abilities are measured by knowledge, skill, attitude, and awareness about the host language and
culture, and the interactional abilities are covered by adaptability, flexibility, appropriateness,
and effectiveness of communication. These abilities are components that successful
communicators might possess and ways to behave in intercultural communicative situations.

37
Such ICC is developed gradually and is influenced by multiple variables, such as the individual’s
personality and cultural differences. Figure 2 illustrates (1) two such aspects or levels of ICC, (2)
major components of ICC, (3) the intercultural communicative situation, and (4) the iterative and
gradually developed attributes.
Figure 2. Relevant dimensions and components to assess NNS graduate students’ ICC
The following explains Figure 2 in a detailed manner. First, the individual’s knowledge
(and awareness), skill, and attitude should manifest themselves in the assessable internal and
external outcomes (Deardorff, 2007) when students are involved in the intercultural
communicative situation where actual interaction occurs. Second, the major factors of ICC
include attitude, skill, and knowledge (and/or awareness) about intercultural communicative
situations (Byram, 1997; Fantini, 2005). Third, the specified intercultural communicative
situation will involve (a) relationship building, (b) communication without misunderstanding and

38
distortion, and (c) collaboration for mutual interest or needs (Fantini, 2005). Lastly, the
individual’s ICC is developed through the iterative cycle. For example, “as respect, openness,
and cultural curiosity increase, so does cultural knowledge… as [the] awareness and knowledge
is gained through the development of key communicative and cognitive skills” (Deardorff, 2007,
p. 91).
Instructional design models emphasizing cultural considerations. Several IDT scholars
have strongly articulated that cultural factors in learning should be considered during the entire
process of instructional design and development. Subramony (2004) argued that IDT scholars
have neglected the cultural diversity issues affecting international students or cultural minority
students in the classroom. He also warned that the consequences from the neglect might produce
inappropriate instructional solutions. Branch (1997) stated that some ID models, such as the
Analysis-Design-Development-Implementation-Evaluation (ADDIE) model, Dick, Carey &
Carey’s systematic design model, and Gagne’s nine events, offer the opportunity to consider
“culture” or “cultural pluralism” during the process of instructional design. As a result, he
suggested several ways to facilitate culturally pluralistic and sensitive instruction based on the
existing ID models.
As the most influential work, Henderson’s (1996) multiple cultures model (MCM)
provided some guidelines for instructional designers to “design a learning environment that
promotes equity of outcomes for learners, particularly learners from disadvantaged minority
groups” (p. 94). Henderson (1996) argued “instructional design is socially and culturally
constructed; instructional designers do not exist in a vacuum; nor are they neutral” (p. 85).
Henderson’s MCM model, based on the discussion of epistemology and pedagogic philosophy,
provides a useful framework including multiple dimensions that demonstrate a continuum

39
between two extremes such as the behaviorist school of instructional design and the
constructivist school.
As the most recent work, Young’s (2008a, 2008b, 2009) culture based model (CBM)
indicates the considerations ranging from “internationalize, generic, and culture-neutral” to
“localize, specialized, and cultural-specific” in designing information and communication
technologies. Young provided 70 design factors in eight areas of CBM including Inquiry,
Development, Team, Assessments, Brainstorming, Learners, Elements, and Training (acronym
of these areas: ID-TABLET) for instructional designers to better understand “the intricacies of a
society, culture, or target audience” (Young, 2008a, p. 112).
Summary
In this section, two areas (language learning and intercultural communication) have been
explored to identify communicative competences on which NNS students need to focus. The area
of language learning has revealed that communicative competence not only includes linguistic
competence but also other competences such as discourse, actional, sociocultural and strategic
Competences. Given the need for the integration of such multiple competences, NNS students
need to prepare for and develop a well-balanced communicative competence that helps them to
mediate socially and culturally appropriate and effective communications.
The area of intercultural communication has presented the increasing importance of
cultural factors which are influenced by and influence one’s communication pattern. Several
concepts presented in this section are helpful in identifying individuals’ cultural differences in
relation to communication. Intercultural communicative competence includes attitude,
knowledge, adaptation, flexibility, and communication abilities for NNS graduate students to be

40
more socially engaged in learning. Definitions and models describing intercultural
communicative competence provide its ecological, complex, and gradually developed attributes.
It is also important for instructional designers to consider analyzing the characteristics of
those learners as a step in the design process. However, there is no empirical research aiming to
explore and assess NNS students’ intercultural communication for the purpose of learner analysis
in the field of instructional design and technology. Although any instructional design (ID) model
regards learner analysis as an important process (Branch, 1997; Dick, et al., 2005; Gagné, 1965;
Seels & Richey, 1994), existing ID models do not specifically indicate ICC as a vital aspect of
learners to be considered. Like other characteristics such as gender, age, learning style, and
previous experience, ICC can be an important factor to analyze learners.
In response to Subramony’s (2004) argument that instructional designers have failed to
address cultural diversity issues in the classroom and Branch’s (1997) suggestions for facilitating
culturally sensitive instruction, several culture-focused instructional design models have been
built. Thomas, Mitchell, and Joseph (2002) pointed out that the existing ADDIE model and other
structures alike only address “culture” in the initial learner analysis stage and final evaluation
stage. They argued that “culture is central to meaning making and cognition in general and …
ADDIE model [should be] not only iterative and multi-directional but also three dimensional
[including] three parameters: intension, interaction, and introspection” (p. 42). As a
comprehensive model, the third dimension of the ADDIE model illustrated by Thomas et al.
(2002) suggests considering the culture intentionally in every phase of instructional design,
collaborating interactively with other audiences of instructional design such as subject matter
experts and end user participants; and using introspection into one’s own thoughts, feelings, and
actions toward the target cultures. Henderson (1996) and Young (2008a, 2008b, 2009) developed

41
models described in this section, which took into account the need for analysis of cultural needs
of learners.
The studies and models introduced above demonstrate profound and thoughtful
considerations of culture-related issues and cultural diversity in the aspects of instructional
design. While such research and efforts for model building commonly emphasize considering the
complexity of cultural issues and reflecting them into instructional design practices, no empirical
research describes the unique characteristics of certain culturally and linguistically diverse
groups and analyzes their intercultural communicative competence. Therefore, this study can
offer practical help for instructional designers to better understand the characteristics of
culturally diverse groups and to prepare appropriate and effective instructional solutions.
In addition, the existing models do not specifically indicate preliminary conditions that
learners should possess for culturally appropriate and effective communication in learning. The
previous models tend to disregard the importance of intercultural communicative competence of
learners as instructional design considerations. As a follow-up study that emphasizes the cultural
competences of instructional designers and consideration of cultural factors in learning, it is
necessary to investigate the intercultural competences of culturally diverse target learners. In this
regard, the concepts and components of ICC are expected to substantially enrich existing ID
models which emphasize the learner characteristics and culture related issues or cultural diversity.
The content discussed in this section can be particularly utilized to develop an instrument to
assess the ICC of NNS graduate students.
Instructional Design Strategies for Socially Engaged Learning
Reigeluth (1999) states that while learning theories are descriptive, instructional design
theories are prescriptive. The goal of this research – to discover instructional design implications

42
for NNS graduate students – is similar to preparing a prescription for them. The prescription
must be based on theoretical foundations of learning that explain how those students can better
learn and improve their performance more effectively.
Given that the major characteristics of the target learners discussed in previous sections
are cultural diversity and need for social adjustment and intercultural communicative
competence, this review of literature should include the theories that are related to sociocultural
aspects of learning. Therefore, this section includes the review of (1) social learning theory
(Bandura, 1977), explaining an individual’s social and psychological functioning; (2)
sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and activity theory (Engeström, 1987; Leont'ev, 1978),
explaining social and cultural impacts on learning; and (3) situated learning theory (Brown, et al.,
1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991), emphasizing the effect of gradual involvement in the community
of practice.
Social Learning Theory
Social learning theory deals with the acquisition and regulation of human behavior
(Bandura, 1977). This theory, also known as social cognitive theory, is derived from behaviorism
but explains cognitive development in the contextualized perspective (B. Zimmerman, 1983).
Two fundamental concepts support this theory: (1) reciprocal determinism and (2) observational
learning. The first point implies that “behavior, other personal factors, environmental factors all
operate as interlocking determinants of each other” (Bandura, 1977, pp. 9-10). That is, this
theory expresses the view that “people are not driven by either inner forces or environment
stimuli in isolation” (Burton, Moore, & Magliaro, 1996, p. 12). The second point implies that
persons can learn by observing others’ behavior. Bandura (1977) noted “human thought, affect,

43
and behavior can be markedly influenced by observation, as well as by direct experience” (p. vii)
with the psychological functions in vicarious, symbolic, and self-regulatory processes.
Social learning theory has influenced many areas such as personality or sociability
development and self-efficacy as a predictor of behavior. The most professional influences in
IDT are modeling and self-regulated learning strategies. First, modeling is explained by four
steps: (1) attention, in which learners pay attention to the modeled events; (2) retention, which
means that they construct a cognitive representation by remembering; (3) reproduction, in which
they transform remembered information into appropriate forms for a new context; and (4)
motivational processes, which make them more likely to perform modeled events when actions
lead to positive consequences (Bandura, 1977, 1986; Driscoll, 2005). While the first two steps
are related to acquisition, the last two indicate regulation of performance. The distinction implies
that people do not perform everything they have observed, rather they control their own behavior
through the self-regulatory function (Bandura, 1977). The self-regulatory function
conceptualized by Bandura (1986) includes three key sub-processes: (1) self-observation, the
stage of gaining information, (2) judgment process, the stage of comparing present performance
with one’s goal, and (3) self-reaction, the stage of progressing the motivational effects. The
modeling and self-regulatory functions have been applied in many educational settings and have
been proved as effective learning strategies. For example, modeling strategies and self-regulation
strategies enhance students’ self-efficacy which implies people’s belief in their capabilities
(Bandura, 1997) and learning achievement (Schunk, 1984; Schunk & Hanson, 1985).
This theory can be applied to the process of learning that NNS graduate students
experience while attending a U.S. university. For example, as the students observe and contact
other students speaking their target language, and experience the host culture, they firstly

44
observe the proper use of language, practice using it through the self-regulatory process, and
finally, function appropriately in the new environment. Thus, useful instructional strategies for
NNS graduate students might be the appropriate use of modeling and guidance to develop their
own self-regulative learning strategies. Such self-regulation strategies include goal setting,
planning, self-monitoring, attention control, application of learning strategies, self-monitoring,
appropriate help-seeking, self-evaluation, and self-reflection (Ormrod, 2007).
Sociocultural and Cultural-Historical Activity Theory
Sociocultural theory, originated by Vygotsky (1978), views learning as “a profoundly
social process” (p. 131). This theory emphasizes the social interaction between individual and
environment (social, situated, cultural, and contextual perspective) beyond mental functioning
between human thought and behavior (individual cognition perspective). Such importance of the
social aspect of learning is conceptualized by the zone of proximal development (ZPD) defined
as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem
solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under
adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). This
concept highlighting the role of more capable peers has been applied in several instructional
strategies such as instructional scaffolding and reciprocal teaching.
Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory has been succeeded by Russian cultural
psychologists (Leont'ev, 1978; Luria, 1981) and today’s scholars in the international and
multidisciplinary perspectives (Engeström, 1999). The notion of mediation is a milestone of the
cultural-historical approach. It implies several points: (1) the use of tools is a cultural feature of
human beings (Luria, 1928); (2) “every elementary form of behavior … requires an intermediate
link ” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 39); and (3) “the simple stimulus and response is replaced as a

45
complex mediated act” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 40). Such a notion of mediation is reformulated as
the basic format of activity theory including the triangle of subject (S), object (O), and mediated
artifact (M). While the base of the triangle (direct connection of subject and object) indicates the
natural and unmediated functions, the vertex of the triangle (an auxiliary means) indicates
cultural and mediated functions (Cole & Engeström, 1993).
The concept of mediation is completed by the activity system conceptualized by Leont’ev
(1978) who highlighted the “collective nature of human activities” (Cole & Engeström, 1993, p.
7) and Engeström who expanded it with a graphical model. Engeström (2001) explains that the
triangle of S,O, and M is the “tip-iceberg to represent individual and group actions embedded in
a collective activity system” (p. 134). In regard to the expanded activity system, Cole and
Engeström (1993) state that:
individuals (subject) are constituted in communities; the relations between subject and
community are mediated on the one hand by the groups’ full collection of mediating
artifacts, on the other hand by rules (the norms and sanctions that specify and regulate
the expected correct procedures and acceptable interactions among the participants);
communities, in turn, imply a division of labor, the continuously negotiated distribution
of tasks, powers, and responsibilities among the participants of the activity system. (p. 7)
The cultural historical activity theory described above has increasingly impacted on the
area of learning and teaching and the area of human and computer interaction (HCI) (Engeström,
Miettinen, & Punamakin, 1999). The professional influences in IDT include (1) interaction
design, and (2) the design of the student-centered learning environment. First, several interaction
design principles derived from activity theory have been usefully recognized in HCI and the
computer supportive working environment (CSCW). As an example, the theory suggests using

46
the “activity” as a unit of analysis in isolation (Wertsch, 1991). Kuutti (1996) explains that since
human actions are always situated in a context, activity can be a useful unit as a “minimal
meaningful context for individual actions” (p. 26).
Second, such strategies for interaction design become useful in the design of a student-
centered learning environment. Uden (2007) elicits the design strategies from this theory and
applies them in designing a mobile computer supported collaborative learning environment. The
specific strategies include clarifying the purpose of the activity, analyzing the context for
learning and use, analyzing the history of the activity and its components and actions, and
sharing information and resources to prevent internal conflicts.
The theories and strategies described above can be useful in facilitating the interaction of
NNS graduate students with other members and the new environment. As previous research
suggests, the academic success of NNS international graduate students relies on their social
contact with other members in the community. This theory supports that NNS students can be
effectively engaged in learning through frequent and meaningful social interaction in the activity
system. Also, providing appropriate scaffolding in their learning and adjustment process might
be useful. Since international students can bring different perspectives and skills, collaborative
learning and reciprocal teaching can be effectively utilized in the graduate program. Lastly,
activity theory suggests analyzing the learner’s culture and context, providing clear purpose of
activity, and contextualizing their learning. Such strategies are expected to facilitate not only
students’ motivation but also their learning transfer for future application.
Situated Learning Theory
Situated learning is defined as the notion of “learning knowledge and skills in context
that reflect the way the knowledge will be useful in real life” (Collins, 1988, p. 2). This theory,

47
also known as situated cognition theory, is a “new and existing interdisciplinary synthesis” (Pea
& Brown, 1991, p. 11) supported by scholars and practitioners from diverse fields. Three areas
with a great emphasis on social aspects of learning have contributed to this theory.
First, the educational psychology and cognitive science tradition have recognized the
“unbalances between school learning and learning outside of school” (Resnick, 1987, p. 4) and
the gap between knowing and doing (Brown, et al., 1989). Second, sociocultural theory by
Vygotsky and his collaborators contributes to extending the social perspective on learning
beyond structured and institutional pedagogy (Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996; Kirshner &
Whitson, 1997; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Schuh & Barab, 2008). Unlike activity theory that
focuses on the structures and interrelations within activity systems, this theory focuses on
“connecting issues of sociocultural transformation with the changing relations between
newcomers and old-timers in the context of a changing shared practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991,
p. 17). Lastly, the anthropological and sociological areas significantly impact the formation of
major concepts of this theory. They claim the distance between the lab and the real world
situation; address everyday cognition (Rogoff & Lave, 1984); highlight the context of everyday
activity (Henning, 1996); and conceptualize legitimate peripheral participation.
Legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) explains the process by which newcomers
gradually and increasingly acquire the knowledge and skills, and transform their identities in the
community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The community of practice is generated in actual
cases of apprenticeship. Lave and Wenger (1991) find historically and culturally specific
examples in the community of midwives, tailors, quartermasters, butchers, and alcoholics.
Community of practice is illustrated by a small and informal group where people share their
knowledge, learn intricacies of jobs, explore the meaning of work, and construct an image of the

48
community, rather than “well-defined and identifiable group or socially visible boundaries”
(Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 98). Such a group is also distinguished from other practice fields.
Barab and Duffy (2000) point out that a community of practice must have a sustainable
community with a significant history and include shared goals, beliefs, practices and a collection
of experiences.
The concepts in situated learning have influenced several important instructional design
frameworks in IDT. The representative concepts are: (1) cognitive apprenticeship, (2) anchored
instruction, and (3) learning communities. First, cognitive apprenticeship is a framework which
takes the features of the traditional apprenticeship and applies them to the school subjects such as
reading, writing and mathematics (Collins, Brown, & Holum, 1991; Collins, Brown, & Newman,
1989). Unlike the traditional apprenticeship in which the processes of the activity are visible,
thinking processes in subjects of schooling are often invisible. The major instructional strategies
of cognitive apprenticeship are to make such invisible thinking to be visible and practical
(Collins, et al., 1991). Thus, the major roles of instructional designers and instructors are to (1)
identify the process of the task, (2) situate abstract tasks in authentic contexts, and (3) vary the
specific conditions of situations while articulating the common aspects.
Second, anchored instruction shares the idea of situated cognition that makes use of the
inert knowledge problem. Thus, this instructional framework is developed in order to create
“environments that permit sustained exploration by students and teachers and enable them to
understand the kinds of problems and opportunities that experts in various areas encounter and
the knowledge that these experts use as tools”(CTGV, 1990, p. 3). As an exemplar project, the
Jasper Woodbury Series conducted by Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV)
highlights complex problem solving, “what if” thinking, and cross-curricular extensions

49
including mathematics, science, history, geography, etc. (CTGV, 1992). The remarkable
instructional strategy incorporated in this project is the embedding of all the data needed to solve
the problem in an interesting story. This method has been recognized as a useful approach to
increase not only students’ motivation but also their problem solving ability.
Third, a learning community is a visible format of a community of practice. As an early
work, Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE), a knowledge-building
community (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994), allowed students to access a common database
including information in several media (text, drawing, graphs, timelines, etc.) where they could
retrieve, link, and add comments in the learning community (Scardamalia, Bereiter, Mclean,
Swallow, & Woodruff, 1989). As the popularity of online (or virtual) learning has grown, many
other fields have incorporated learning communities or knowledge building systems. For
example, Brown and Duguid (1991) report that conventional ways in which organizations use
manuals, training programs, or job descriptions do not usually contribute much to the ways
people actually work. Learning community is a “unified view of working, learning, and
innovating” (p. 40) and can make it possible to redesign organizations and improve their work
quality.
The described concepts and instructional strategies derived from situated learning theory
are helpful in explaining the learning of NNS graduate students. Especially, the community of
practice illustrates the process that successful NNS graduate students can experience. That is,
active and steady involvement and participation, and a newly formed social identity within the
community of practice might be highly important for their academic success. Also, other
instructional strategies such as the use of authentic tasks and contextualized learning methods
can effectively drive NNS graduate students’ learning.

50
Synthesis: Socially Engaged Learning
In reviewing the commonalities of social theories of learning, socially engaged learning
comprises four key points: gradual engagement, rich cultural context, self-regulation ability, and
integration of communication tools. That is, socially engaged learning is defined as a learning
environment where learners are gradually involved in the rich cultural context, the learner’s self-
regulation ability is encouraged for active participation, and communication tools are effectively
and appropriately integrated in the intercultural learning situation. The flow of theoretical
backgrounds and notions of socially engaged learning is illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 3. Theoretical backgrounds and notions of socially engaged learning
In addition, socially engaged learning is an extended concept of engaged learning which
establishes the students, more positively, as active learners, requiring a high level of learner

51
participation, responsibility for learning, learning with authentic tasks or problems, and
collaboration with other students in shared and flexible roles (Brill & Park, 2008; Bulger, et al.,
2006; Hung, et al., 2006). Several scholars have developed and categorized the indicators of
engaged learning.
Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski, and Rasmussen (1994) provide a comprehensive and useful
set of eight indicators of engaged learning, and suggest that the following are important: (1) a
vision of learning, (2) authentic and multidisciplinary tasks, (3) performance-based, generative,
seamless, and equitable assessment, (4) interactive and generative instructional model, (5)
collaborative, knowledge-building, empathetic learning context, (6) heterogeneous, equitable,
and flexible groupings, (7) teacher as a facilitator, guider, and co-learner/investigator, and (8)
student as an explorer, cognitive apprentice, teacher, and producer. Jones and his colleagues
(1994) refined and expanded a study on the seven indicators identified by Means and her
colleagues (1993) which was grounded in observations of successful practice.
Hung, Tan and Koh (2006) offer an engaged learning framework including problem
ownership, collaboration, monitoring, role of experts, and use of tools. This framework was
derived from a rather robust review of learning theories based on constructivism, situated
cognition, authenticity in learning, self-regulated learning, and problem based learning.
Wang and Kang (2006) have grouped indicators of engagement into three domains –
cognitive, emotional, and social engagement. Each domain highlights (1) self-regulative,
responsible, and generative learning; (2) confident, secure, comfortable, and curious feeling; and
(3) sharing resources and information, cohesiveness, acceptance, and collaborative learning.

52
Theoretical backgrounds and literature-based frameworks for engaged learning, such as
those discussed here, help to organize and develop critical instructional design strategies for
socially engaged learning. The following explains the four derived categories.
The first category is gradual engagement and active participation. A common argument
of three social theories of learning is that learning occurs through the gradual involvement and
active participation in the community of practice. It emphasizes observation (Bandura, 1977) to
legitimate peripheral participation and to full participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). During this
engagement process, social interactions with the assistance of more capable persons are pivotal
(Vygotsky, 1978). The design implications for NNS graduate students in this category are the
following:
 NNS graduate students can effectively learn given structured guidelines and
instructional scaffolding (e.g., appropriate questions, tasks, and explanations in
order for them to go the next steps) with the assistance of more experienced
people.
 They can perform well given appropriate models (e.g., successful sample
practices) in order to observe, interpret, and apply them to their own work.
 They can perform effectively through frequent social interactions such as
reciprocal teaching, group working, team working, etc.
The second category is rich cultural context. This category implies that learning occurs in
the rich cultural and situational context. Thus, learning occurs effectively when it is embedded in
authentic tasks, problems, and projects. Also, it is important to analyze a learner’s culture so that
he or she can understand both implicit and explicit knowledge based on their cultural and

53
historical background (Brown, et al., 1989; Hung & Chen, 2001). Specific implications for NNS
graduate students are the following:
 NNS graduate students can effectively learn with their own authentic tasks,
problems, and projects.
 They can effectively understand the meaning when rich contextual information is
provided.
 NNS graduate students’ learning can be motivated through a cultural and
historical activity where new knowledge and their previous experiences (probably
formulated in their home culture or context) are effectively connected.
The third category, self-regulation, implies that learning is ultimately driven by an
individual’s effort and self-control. Thus, it is important to provide appropriate guidance for
students’ self-regulative learning ability. The implications for NNS graduate students are:
 NNS graduate students can effectively learn when they choose their own goal and
process of work.
 They can effectively perform when the quality of their work is self-monitored and
evaluated.
 They can efficiently learn when they reflect and write something that they missed
or found difficult, and seek help from other fellow students or other experts.
The last category is integration of communication technology. According to Vygotsky
(1978), learning is mediated by tool. The tool includes language, technology, and other cultural
artifacts. Thus, instructional design for NNS graduate students should consider the aspect of
effective technology to support their linguistic and cultural differences. The implications for
NNS graduate students are:

54
 NNS graduate students can effectively learn given the use of computers (e.g., e-
mail, or bulletin board in a learning management system) to communicate with
instructors and other students.
 They can effectively learn when they participate in an asynchronous discussion
(e.g., discussion board and e-mail) rather than a synchronous environment (e.g.,
chatting, conferencing, and face-to-face discussion).
Summary
In this section, three social theories of learning (social learning theory, sociocultural and
cultural historical active theory, and situated learning theory) have been reviewed to identify the
effective instructional strategies for helping NNS graduate students become more socially
engaged in learning. Although each theory’s origins, roles, and contributions are different, the
main contribution of social theories of learning is their strong response to conventional learning
or “school-forged theories” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 61) which rely heavily on or focus on the
acquisition of knowledge and individual’s cognition. The common emphasis of social theories of
learning is the situational and contextual nature of learning. In other words, human beings do not
live in a vacuum but are embedded in their sociocultural context, and their behavior cannot be
understood independently of that context (Engeström, et al., 1999; Paavola, Lipponen, &
Hakkarainen, 2004). Such a theoretical perspective can be especially necessary for NNS graduate
students because those students are culturally and linguistically diverse; they share common
difficulties from cultural differences, linguistics barriers, and social adjustment problems; and
they came to be socialized in a new environment and to experience valuable cross-cultural
learning experiences rather than to be isolated in a context- or culture- free vacuum.

55
Although each theory provides useful insights for teaching and learning of NNS graduate
students, in this section, an effort has been made to synthesize the theories into a framework,
called socially engaged learning. In addition, four major concepts of socially engaged learning
are helpful in eliciting practical instructional design strategies for NNS graduate students. The
concepts are (1) gradual engagement and active participation, (2) rich cultural context, (3) self-
regulation, and (4) integration of communication technology. However, although the derived
instructional strategies are based on theoretical grounds aforementioned and include
consideration of critical points of each social theory of learning, these strategies have not been
empirically applied to a real situation, nor verified through NNS graduate students’ response and
voice. The need is evident for a study to investigate the perceptions of NNS graduate students in
regard to effective instructional design strategies for socially engaged learning as well as
intercultural communicative competence that was discussed in the previous section.
Several IDT scholars have conducted research on teaching and preparing culturally
diverse students and concluded that more research is needed about those unique students. Ku et
al. (2008) emphasized a continued need to address academic support mechanisms for
international doctoral students and called for more research to learn their perceptions regarding
the kind of supports which can help those students achieve success in the academy. McLoughlin
(1999, 2001), focusing on online learning situations, discussed culturally sensitive and
appropriate design for diverse students and noted that instructional designers should be aware of
students’ sociocultural backgrounds and learning styles. McLoughlin (2001) stated that the aim
of culturally inclusive design is to ensure that “pedagogy and curriculum are flexible, adaptable
and relevant to students from a diverse range of cultural and language backgrounds” (p. 7). Gay
(2002), focusing on special education for ethnically diverse students, argued that culturally

56
responsive teaching should be considered for those who are not part of the majority and
mainstream of schools and society. Although the perspectives introduced above were cases of
specific environments (doctoral mentoring program, online learning, and special education), the
common theme shows the clear need for research on instructional design implications for
culturally diverse students like NNS graduate students.

57
Chapter 3: Methodology
The purpose of this research was to describe characteristics of NNS graduate students and
to suggest effective instructional design strategies for them to become more socially engaged and
to successfully study in a U.S. graduate program. For this purpose, this study focused on
investigating their perceptions on intercultural communicative competence (ICC) and effective
instructional strategies for socially engaged learning. The research questions are the following:
1. What are the perceptions of NNS graduate students in regard to their intercultural
communicative competence (ICC)?
2. What are the perceptions of NNS graduate students in regard to the effective
instructional strategies for their socially engaged learning?
This chapter outlines the approach that was used to answer the above research questions. It
includes (1) research design, (2) research setting and participation, (3) instrument, (4) research
quality, (5) data collection, (6) data analysis, and (7) research limitations.
Research Design
This study employed a descriptive and quantitative approach using a survey method. The
survey is the most common descriptive methodology in educational settings when a researcher
wants to report characteristics of specific individuals, groups or physical environments (Fraenkel
& Wallen, 2006). Basically, the purpose of survey research is to generalize “from a sample to a
population so that inferences can be made about some characteristic, attitude, or behavior of this
population” (Creswell, 2003, p. 154). The survey for this study was designed to investigate the
perceptions of NNS graduate students attending U.S. universities on their intercultural
communicative competences and effective instructional strategies.

58
Survey research is appropriate (1) when the population needs to be studied as a whole,
and (2) when the researcher wants to find out how the members of the population distribute
themselves on one or more variables such as age, gender, and ethnicity (Fraenkel & Wallen,
2006). The survey method was an appropriate choice for this research because this researcher
was interested in knowing about diverse NNS international graduate students; further, this study
focused on how such diverse members’ perceptions differed in relation to their demographic
backgrounds.
This study used a cross-sectional survey method rather than a longitudinal one, with the
data collected at one point in time (Creswell, 2003). This method involved preparing a written
self-administered questionnaire and distributing it to a diverse sample from the target population.
As the data collection vehicle, a web-based survey was chosen so as to involve a large number of
participants and to accelerate the process of data collection and analysis.
Research Setting and Target Population
The total number of international graduate students enrolled in U.S. universities in 2007
and 2008 was 276,842. As a land-grant university, Virginia Tech currently ranks 48th among the
leading U.S. institutions with more than 1,000 international students (Open Doors, 2008).
According to Virginia Tech (2010), of its 4,555 enrolled graduate students, 1,644 are
international graduate students. Considering the proportion of international graduate students at
the university (around 36.09%), Virginia Tech was a reasonable research context in which to
conduct this study. However, the results of this study cannot be generalized beyond the context
of a single institution, Virginia Tech.
The target population of this study was defined as international graduate students enrolled
at Virginia Tech. Since this research targeted NNS students, international graduate students

59
whose native language was English were excluded from the sample. The Virginia Tech Office of
Institutional Research and Effectiveness provided the student enrollment status through their
website. Table 1 gives the distribution of the background characteristics of international graduate
students who were enrolled in spring 2009.
Table 1
Background Characteristics of International Graduate Students at Virginia Tech
Background Characteristics Number Percentage
Graduate Students
Domestic 2,911 64
International 1,644 36
Gender
Male 1,131 69
Female 513 31
Degree
Masters 526 32
Doctoral 1,060 64
College
Agricultural and Life Science 97 6
Architecture and Urban Studies 68 4
Business 120 7
Engineering 881 54
Liberal Arts and Human Sciences 71 4
Natural Resources 42 3
Science 252 15
Veterinary Medicine 27 2
Inter College 86 5
Nation of Residence
China 572 35
India 419 25
South Korea 130 8
Iran 57 3
Taiwan 42 3
Egypt 33 2
Turkey 33 2
Germany 27 2
Thailand 24 1
France 17 1
Etc.
(Mexico, Italy, Nepal, Colombia, Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia, Bangladesh, Canada, Peru, Greece, …) 338 21

60
Instrument
The major instrument of this study was a written questionnaire. The content of the
questionnaire was designed based on the literature review and included both closed-ended and
open-ended questions. The survey items were divided into three parts: (1) background
information, (2) intercultural communicative competences, and (3) instructional design strategies
for socially engaged learning. Table 2 presents the survey items and alignment with research
questions.
Table 2
Research Questions and Survey Items
Research Questions Survey Items Type
Part 1. Background information
Gender, Marital status, Degree, Age,
Nationality, Native language(s), College,
Major, Previous job experience, etc.
Multiple
choices and
short answers
RQ1. What are the perceptions
of NNS graduate students in
regard to their intercultural
communicative competence
(ICC)?
Part 2. Intercultural communicative
competence
Please rate yourself in what extent you are
able to communicate appropriately and
effectively in intercultural situation. (Details
are in Table 3)
Likert scale
RQ2. What are the perceptions
of NNS graduate students in
regard to the effective
instructional strategies for
their socially engaged
learning?
Part 3. Instructional design strategies for
socially engaged learning
Please indicate how importantly you think of
each instructional strategy for socially
engaged learning as you attending in a U.S.
university graduate program.
(Details are in Table 4)
Likert scale

61
Part 1: Background Information
Part 1 collected background information of respondents. The items included some
demographic information such as gender, marital status, degree, age, nationality, native
language(s), and their academic program. In addition, this section incorporated items about the
respondent’s previous working experience, length of study in the U.S., pre-arrival language
preparation, and prior intercultural experiences. These variables were included in this research
framework because previous literature indicated that such items may influence their social
adjustment, intercultural competence, and academic performance (Al-Sharideh & Goe, 1998;
Fantini, 2006; Poyrazli & Kavanaugh, 2006; Trice, 2003). Such variables were expected to make
clearer interpretations possible relevant to the identified research questions. Also, the inclusion
of extraneous variables was expected to increase the study’s external validity (Pedhazur &
Schmelkin, 1991).
Part 2: Intercultural Communicative Competences
Survey items of Part 2 – Intercultural Communicative Competences (ICC) were
constructed based on five categories: (1) Attitude – respect and openness, and curiosity and
discovery, (2) Skills – acquisitive and applicative skills, (3) Knowledge and Awareness –
cultural and sociolinguistic knowledge, (4) Internal outcome – adaptability and flexibility, and (5)
External outcome – effective and appropriate communication. Table 3 presents the categories,
factors, and descriptions for survey items related to ICC.

62
Table 3
Factors and Descriptions for Survey Items of Intercultural Communicative Competences
Category Factors Descriptions of Survey Items
Attitude Respect & Openness
 Valuing other cultures (Deardorff, 2007)
 Open toward intercultural learning and to people from
other cultures (Deardorff, 2007)
 Withholding judgment (Byram, 1997; Deardorff, 2007)
Curiosity & Discovery  Tolerating and engaging ambiguity (Deardorff, 2007)
 Willing to seek out or take up opportunities to engage
with otherness (Byram, 1997)
Skills Acquisitive (input)
 Acquiring new knowledge of a culture and cultural
practices (Byram, 1997)
 Listening, observing, and evaluating
Applicative (output)
 Interpreting a document or event from another culture
(Byram, 1997)
 Explain it and relate it to documents or events from one’s
own (Byram, 1997)
 Analyzing, interpreting, and relating (Deardorff, 2007)
Knowledge &
Awareness Cultural Knowledge  Understanding other’s world views (Deardorff, 2007)
 Knowing historical and contemporary relationships
between one’s own and target countries (Byram, 1997)
 Understanding the value of cultural diversity (Deardorff,
2007)
Sociolinguistic
Knowledge  Knowing the relation between language and meaning in
social context (Deardorff, 2007)
 Understanding the role and impact of culture and the
impact of situational, social, and historical contexts
involved (Deardorff, 2007)
 Understanding the communication system of target
culture (Y. Kim, 1988)
Internal
Outcome Adaptability  Adjustment to new cultural environment (Deardorff,
2007; Y. Kim, 1991)
 Ability to adapt to varying intercultural communication
and learning styles (Deardorff, 2007)
Flexibility
 Cognitive ability to switch frames from etic to emic and
back again (Deardorff, 2007)
 Mental ability to deal with ambiguity and unfamiliarity
(Y. Kim, 1988)
External
Outcome Effective
Communication  Achievement of valued objectives (Deardorff, 2007;
Spitzberg, 1994)
Appropriate
Communication  Avoidance of violating valued rules (Deardorff, 2007;
Spitzberg, 1994)

63
The following describes the concepts which were transformed into items for the survey
instrument. First, attitude is a fundamental and important starting point (Byram, 1997; Deardorff,
2007). Attitude is an essential element in the acquisition of knowledge (Deardorff, 2007) and
indicates the “curiosity and openness of readiness to suspend disbelief and judgment with respect
to others’ meanings, beliefs and behaviors” (Byram, 1997, p. 34). Second, skills for ICC indicate
one’s practical abilities both for acquiring new knowledge by listening, observing, and
evaluating, and for applying knowledge by analyzing, interpreting, and relating in the new
situation (Byram, 1997; Deardorff, 2007). Third, knowledge and awareness include deep cultural
knowledge and sociolinguistic knowledge. Deardorff (2007) noted that “the understanding of
others’ world view” had 100% agreement by intercultural experts as an important element of
ICC. Also, knowing or being aware of historical and contemporary relationships between one’s
own and the target culture (Byram, 1997), and the value of cultural diversity (Deardorff, 2007)
have been recognized as important elements. Sociolinguistic knowledge indicates knowing the
relation between language and meaning in the social context, the role and impact of culture, the
impact of situational, social, and historical contexts involved (Deardorff, 2007), and the overall
communication system of the target culture (Y. Kim, 1988).
The individual level of ICC (attitude, skills, and knowledge) is expanded to internal and
external outcomes through diverse and frequent intercultural communicative situations.
Adaptability and flexibility, as desired internal outcomes of ICC, play a vital role in achieving
appropriate and effective communication (Deardorff, 2007). Adaptability implies “the
individual’s capacity to modify some of the old cultural ways, to learn and accommodate some
of the new cultural ways, and to creatively find ways to manage the dynamics of cultural
difference/unfamiliarity, intergroup posture, and the accompanying stress” (Y. Kim, 1991, p.

64
268). Flexibility means the cognitive ability to switch a frame from the outsider’s etic view to the
insider’s emic view and back again (Deardorff, 2007). Kim (1988) also highlighted cognitive
flexibility as a capacity “to be mentally flexible in dealing with ambiguity and unfamiliarity” (p.
97). A desired external outcome is the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in
intercultural communicative situations. According to Spitzberg (1994), while effectiveness
indicates the achievement of valued objectives, appropriateness means the ability to avoid
violating valued rules. Therefore, this external outcome as well as other components ultimately
can answer the question “to what extent are you able to communicate appropriately and
effectively in intercultural situations?”
To develop a complete questionnaire for the survey instrument, this study referred to an
existing assessment tool developed by Fantini (2000, 2006) and rearranged the items based on
the framework described in Table 3. The existing instrument of ICC (Fantini, 2000) is a self-
assessment tool designed for four different groups of people – (1) educational travelers, (2)
sojourners, (3) professionals, and (4) intercultural specialists – to assess their ICC level and
utilize the result as a guideline for self-development. The original instrument, called Your
Objectives, Guidelines, and Assessment (YOGA), consists of four educational objectives with 87
items including 21 awareness items, 18 attitude items, 24 skills items, and 23 knowledge items
based on Bloom’s taxonomy. This instrument has been utilized for several research projects.
First, a research project directed by Fantini (2006) utilized this tool to assess ICC levels of
alumni, volunteers, and host mentors who participated in the Federation of the Experiment in
International Living (FEIL) program and stayed in Ecuador, Great Britain, and Switzerland. In
the test of reliability of inter-item consistency in this research, the Cronbach Alphas indicated
0.824 and 0.892 for beginning and end of service responses, respectively.

65
Another research study (Peng, Lu, & Wang, 2009) that employed Fantini’s YOGA
inventory measured the ICC levels of high school students from Taiwan and the U.S. This study
modified the original YOGA instrument developed by Fantini for those students, adopting only
questions from the educational traveler and sojourner levels and translating them into Chinese
for the students from Taiwan. This study conducted pre- and post-tests of computer-mediated
language learning. The result of the research indicated that there were moderate to substantial
relationships among the four ICC dimensions of awareness, attitude, skills, and knowledge.
While Fantini’s YOGA inventory is a useful and reliable tool to measure ICC level, it
only includes awareness, knowledge, skill, and attitude and does not include the internal
outcomes such as flexibility and adaptability and external outcomes such as appropriateness and
effectiveness. Therefore, it was necessary to make survey items for internal and external
outcomes of ICC based on the framework prepared for this study. Also, because Fantini’s
instrument was developed based on four different groups of people, the final questionnaire
needed to be revised for the target subjects of this research, NNS graduate students were who
staying in the U.S. short-term for educational purposes.
By referring to the items from Fantini’s YOGA inventory as well as other resources
(Byram, 1997; Deardorff, 2007; Fantini, 2000; Y. Kim, 1988; Spitzberg, 1994) introduced in
Chapter 2 and framed in Table 3, the draft of the survey instrument was newly developed by the
researcher in November, 2009. After that, the draft instrument was revised multiple times
through expert review and pilot tests. Also, each item was annotated with multiple resources
noted at the bottom of Part 2. As shown in Figure 5, the superscript numbers indicate the
resources that were utilized for developing the items.

66
Figure 4. A method for annotating the resources utilized for developing survey items
Part 2 of the final instrument consisted of 20 items in five ICC dimensions: 4 attitude
items, 4 skill items, 4 knowledge and awareness items, 4 internal outcome items, and 4 external
outcome items. The questions employed a Likert scale from 0- strongly disagree, meaning the
lowest competence, to 5- strongly agree, meaning the highest competence. The final
questionnaire is in Appendix A.
Part 3: Instructional Design Strategies for Socially Engaged Learning
Part 3 of this survey measured how important or effective NNS graduate students
perceived instructional design strategies for socially engaged learning to be in their experience.
Table 4 summarizes the instructional design strategies for socially engaged learning in four
categories which have been derived from the aforementioned social theories of learning: (1)
gradual engagement and active participation, (2) rich cultural context, (3) self-regulation and
learning ownership, and (4) integration of communication technologies.

67
Table 4
Descriptions for Survey Items Indicating Instructional Design Strategies for Socially Engaged
Learning
Categories Descriptions for Survey Items
(Instructional Design Strategies for Socially Engaged Learning)
Gradual engagement and active participation
 Using instructional scaffolding (Collins, et al., 1989)
 Making mutual engagement (Wenger, 1998) through peer reviewing
and reciprocal teaching (Vygotsky, 1978)
 Providing appropriate models and successful cases (Bandura, 1977)
 Facilitating frequent social interactions through the collaboration in a
small group (Vygotsky, 1978)
Rich cultural context
 Using authentic tasks and problems (Collins, 1988; Hung & Chen,
2006; Hung, et al., 2006; B. F. Jones, et al., 1994)
 Anchoring student’s previous experiences and cultural historical
backgrounds (Engeström, 1987; Leont'ev, 1978)
 Providing rich contextual information (Brown, et al., 1989; Collins, et
al., 1989)
 Making diverse, equitable, and flexible learning environment (Hung,
et al., 2006; B. F. Jones, et al., 1994)
Self-regulation and learning ownership
 Requiring high responsibility for and ownership of learning (Bandura,
1986; Hung, et al., 2006; M. Wang & Kang, 2006)
 Encouraging appropriate
meta-cognitive strategies (M. Wang & Kang, 2006)
o Goal setting and planning
o Help-seeking
o Self- monitoring /evaluating/reflecting (Hung, et al., 2006)
Integration of communication technologies
 Using computer-mediated communication for collaborative
knowledge construction tool (Jonassen, 2000; Jonassen, Davidson,
Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995)
 Utilizing asynchronous tools for effective communication and
ensuring enough time to reflect and articulate (Hlas, et al., 2008)

68
The first category, gradual engagement and active participation, stems from the point
that learners move from observation (Bandura, 1977) to legitimate peripheral participation and to
full participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). During the gradual and stepwise engagement process,
instructional scaffolding and mutual engagement (Wenger, 1998) through social interactions
with and the assistance of more capable persons (Vygotsky, 1978) are pivotal. In addition, peer
review, reciprocal teaching, and collaborative working are practical learning methods to facilitate
the learner’s gradual engagement and active participation.
The second category, rich cultural context, implies that learning occurs in the rich
cultural and situational context. In other words, students are more motivated and engaged in
learning when it is embedded in authentic tasks, problems, activities, and projects (Hung &
Chen, 2006; Hung, et al., 2006; B. F. Jones, et al., 1994). It is important to consider the learner’s
historical and cultural background (Engeström, 1987; Leont'ev, 1978) as well as their previous
learning or working experiences so that he or she can understand both implicit and explicit
knowledge based on their cultural and historical background (Brown, et al., 1989; Hung & Chen,
2001). In cases where group learning or team work is involved, grouping should be carefully
considered in order for learners to experience diverse, equitable and flexible roles in a
constructive, productive, and empathetic fashion (Hung, et al., 2006; B. F. Jones, et al., 1994).
The third category, self-regulation and learning ownership, implies that learning is
ultimately driven by the individual’s effort and self-control. Since socially engaged learning
eventually requires high responsibility and ownership, it is important to encourage appropriate
guidance for students’ self-regulative learning ability. Such metacognitive strategies include
learners’ goal setting and planning, help-seeking, self-monitoring, evaluating, and reflecting
(Bandura, 1986; Hung, et al., 2006; M. Wang & Kang, 2006).

69
The last category is integration of communication technology. As noted earlier, Vygotsky
(1978) said that learning is mediated by tools, which include language, technology, and other
cultural artifacts. Instructional design considerations for NNS graduate students should include
the effective use of technology to support their linguistic and cultural differences. For example,
using computer-mediated communication facilitates collaborative knowledge-building (Jonassen,
2000; Jonassen, et al., 1995). In relation to this, research supports utilizing asynchronous tools
for ensuring effective communication and allowing enough time for learners to prepare reflective
articulation (Hlas, et al., 2008).
As shown in the item descriptions in Table 3, the items in Part 3 of the final questionnaire
were transformed to make them more understandable for NNS graduate students who may not
have had instructional design expertise. Part 3 consisted of four categories: 4 gradual
engagement and active participation items, 5 rich cultural context items, 6 self-regulation and
learning ownership items, and 2 communication technologies items. These questions began with
“I can better learn [with…] or [when …]”. Respondents chose responses from the Likert scale
levels ranging from 0 - strongly disagree, indicating the most unimportant, to 5 - strongly agree,
indicating the most important. Since these items were predetermined from the literature review,
the instrument provided participants an opportunity to freely add information that they thought
was important with an open-ended question. The final questionnaire is in Appendix A.
Research Quality: Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability of the instrument were considered to ensure the high quality of
this research. Validity refers to the “appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the
specific inferences made from test scores” (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991, p. 30). In the context
of this survey research, validity implies “whether one can draw meaningful and useful inferences”

70
(Creswell, 2003, p. 157) from the scores of the survey instrument. This study made several
efforts to get evidence of construct validity such as referring to multiple existing resources
related to the contents and structure of the survey instrument, getting experts to review the
questionnaire, and conducting pilot tests.
Reliability refers to “the degree to which test scores are free from errors of measurement”
(American Psychological Association, 1985, p. 19, as cited in Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991, p.
82). Conventionally, the reliability of the items in a survey instrument is established through
coefficient alpha. Coefficient alpha was calculated both after the pilot test and for the final
implementation and both times moderately high values of coefficient alpha were found. As
Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991) emphasized, “a measure cannot be valid, if it is not reliable, but
being reliable it is not necessarily valid for the purpose [it is designed for].” (p. 81). Therefore,
both reliability and validity should be considered equally important. The following describes in
detail the procedures followed in order to improve the research quality: (1) expert review, (2)
pilot test, and (3) reliability test.
Expert Review
This study incorporated critical review of four experts from the perspectives of the
instructional design, foreign language learning, and international educational fields. Guiding
questions as well as the paper-based survey instrument were given to the experts. Two sets of
questions for different subject matter experts were prepared to help them understand the
intention and direction of the expert review. The context and purpose of this study were also
introduced to them through a cover letter that expressed appreciation for their agreement to
participate in the review and requested their opinions about the specific survey items. The review
took place during December, 2009 and January, 2010.

71
Appendix B includes two sets of the cover letter and questions for experts in instructional
design and experts in foreign language learning and international education. In order to help the
experts understand the concept of ICC and instructional strategies of socially engaged learning,
all of the resources utilized for developing the survey items were attached to the cover letter (see
Appendix C). The resources for the items in Part 2 included a brief summary of ICC definitions,
models, dimensions, factors, and item descriptions. The resources for items in Part 3 included the
definition of socially engaged learning (SEL), theoretical backgrounds, indicators of engaged
learning, categories of SEL, instructional strategies for SEL, and descriptions of survey items.
The questions drawing on the perspective of instructional design were designed to check
the usefulness and meaningfulness of the developed survey items. That is, reviewers were asked
whether or not the items could help instructional designers’ understanding about NNS graduate
students’ intercultural communicative competence. In regard to the items for socially engaged
learning, a question asked whether the constructs of SEL were well developed enough to indicate
the strategies needed for NNS graduate students to be socially engaged and successfully study in
a U.S. graduate program. Another question asked whether the survey instrument could be a
useful tool for instructional designers who work closely with NNS graduate students to help
them prepare more effective instruction for the students.
The questions drawing on the perspective of foreign language and international education
were prepared mainly to check the appropriateness of the developed survey as wells its
usefulness. Thus, a question asked the experts whether or not the questions were developed to
measure NNS graduate students’ ICC level. In regard to the constructs of ICC, reviewers were
also asked if the questions appropriately reflected each sub-factor in the ICC model, such as
knowledge, skills, attitudes, internal outcomes, and external outcomes of ICC. Another question

72
solicited suggestions for more strategies that might help those teaching NNS graduate students.
In addition, reviewers were asked for recommendations for preparing the instructions for
participants completing the survey. Because these experts had many experiences working with
NNS students, they were asked whether the questions clearly explained and described the sub-
factors or concepts in both Part 2 and Part 3. Both types of experts were asked for their overall
thoughts about this survey instrument.
Regarding the questions mentioned above, each expert provided valuable comments and
suggestions to improve the structure and content of the survey instrument. One of the experts in
the instructional design area expressed a concern about the clear connection between ICC related
survey questions and instructional design. Also, one of the experts in the foreign language and
international education field had a concern about “how responses on the survey are linked to the
ICC model.” Such comments made by the experts gave the researcher good insight and direction
for the analysis of data and discussion of results. Therefore, these issues and concerns are
highlighted in the results and discussion in the next chapters. Except for the concerns just
mentioned, the experts agreed that the survey items were well developed and reflected the model
of each concept, incorporating the previous literature and theoretical background.
The detailed suggestions made by each expert were summarized as a checklist to guide
the revision and follow up. Throughout the expert review process, the earlier version of the
survey was significantly improved in terms of its clearness and the comprehensiveness of the
survey questions. Specific changes to the instrument based on the comments of the expert
reviewers are described below.
First, in regard to the structure of the survey, experts suggested moving the background
information from its original location to the beginning of the survey, and this was changed

73
accordingly. In Part 1 – Background Information, one expert in the foreign language and
educational field pointed out that some participants, such as African or Indian students, may have
more than one native language. Consequently, one item asking “do you have more than one
native language” was included in the section and the item asking respondents to indicate their
native language was changed to request that they indicate all their native language(s).
Second, in regard to the clearness and accuracy of the survey contents, several items
were included, excluded, or divided into separate questions. Two experts pointed out the issue of
duality in an item. For example, the question, “I can learn more effectively with structured
guidelines rather than being allowed a wide range of autonomy” needed to be divided into two
separate questions because it addressed two different strategies in socially engaged learning. To
make the item clear, the researcher deleted the phrase “rather than being allowed a wide range of
autonomy” and changed “structured guidelines” to “greater structure (e.g., step by step
guidance)”. The final item became “I can learn more effectively with greater structure (e.g., step
by step guidance provided by the instructor).” One expert suggested the addition of an important
instructional strategy for NNS graduate students that the previous version did not contain: “I can
learn more effectively when I get immediate feedback from my instructor.” This item was
included in the final survey instrument.
Unclear expressions and jargon terms were replaced with words that could be easily
understood by NNS students. For example, one item, “withhold judgment about culturally
different people” was changed to “not judge people because they are from a different culture.”
Another example of this was “tolerate ambiguity that is raised when I interact with culturally
different people” which was changed into “accept that there are times that I may not always

74
understand differences between cultures.” In addition to the items mentioned here, several items
were rephrased and improved significantly as clearer and simpler sentences.
Third, the title and instructions that introduced the survey were rewritten using easy and
short words. One expert doubted whether NNS students would understand the word
“competence,” and pointed out that survey participants did not need to know about the term
“socially engaged learning.” Thus, although this survey was about “perceptions on intercultural
communicative competences and instructional design strategies for socially engaged learning,”
the title was changed to refer to “intercultural communication and effective instructional
strategies.” The expert also suggested making the learning situation clear and specific within a
wide range of contexts including informal settings to formal settings, and classroom settings to
individual learning settings. In consideration of this suggestion, the researcher decided to focus
the survey on the class situations that graduate students may experience. As a result, the
instructional message that guides Part 3 was rephrased to, “The following questions will ask
about the effectiveness of instructional strategies that you have experienced in your classes as a
graduate student.” In case students have not experienced specific instructional strategies
indicated in the items, one expert suggested including “N/A” as a response option with the Likert
scale.
Lastly, the scale of the survey instrument was also changed through the expert review
process. The previous version of the scale for Part 2 included “0 – no competence, 1 - very low
competence, 2- low competence, 3- high competence, 4- very high competence, 5 - full
competence.” This was changed to “0-strongly disagree, 1-disagree, 2-slightly disagree, 3-
slightly agree, 4- agree, 5- strongly agree” because the terms low or high competence were not
clear as a scale. Also, the previous version of the scale for Part 3, which included “0-does not

75
matter to me… 5 - very important to me,” was changed to the same type as Part 2 so that the
scales became consistent throughout the entire instrument.
Pilot Test
In order to test the effectiveness of the survey instruments (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006), the
researcher conducted pilot tests with sixteen participants who were part of the target population
of Virginia Tech NNS graduate students. The pilot tests for this study were conducted
consecutively with paper-based surveys and a web-based survey tool. As the first pilot test, eight
NNS graduate students participated with the early version of the paper-based survey instrument
which was the same one utilized for expert review. The detailed suggestions made by each pilot
tester were summarized as a checklist to guide follow up of comments and feedback.
The first pilot test was conducted from February 8 to 10, 2010. During the pilot test, the
researcher collected not only the completed questionnaire, but also participants’ feedback on
ease and clarity of questions. For the first pilot test, the researcher distributed the paper-based
survey to participants and received it back from them with verbal feedback and written marks on
the paper. Several testers asked about including an “other” response option in the question about
their marital status for those who were divorced or in a relationship. Also, in regard to the degree
of respondents, one tester pointed out that the question about the respondent’s degree was
confusing. It was not clear whether the question referred to the degree that they were pursuing or
the degree that they had already earned. Thus, the item was changed to specify the “degree that
you are pursuing currently.” Several unclear expressions, grammatical errors, and inconsistent
use of pronouns were corrected. For example, “autonomy,” “ambiguity,” “competence,” “unique
signs and languages,” “mutual engagement,” and “target culture” were addressed as difficult

76
words to understand. Items were revised to simpler and more direct sentences so that respondents
did not have to think much about the meaning of the questions.
The second pilot test was conducted during February 12 to 14, 2010 after the web-based
survey was developed based on the revisions resulting from the expert review and the first pilot
test. Virginia Tech’s “survey.vt.edu,” which is freely available to the university’s faculty and
students, was utilized to set up the present study’s web-based survey. In addition, the filebox
utility that Virginia Tech provides to every student was used to develop a web page to carry the
informed consent form which included a button to link to the web-based survey. The second pilot
test sought to evaluate the online distribution method as well as the survey content itself. An
invitation letter and a link to the informed consent form was e-mailed to eight NNS graduate
students who did not participate in the first pilot test. Students in the test group represented
different colleges, including Liberal Arts and Human Sciences, Engineering, and Architecture
and Urban Studies. The researcher asked the second group of pilot testers to give feedback on (1)
how long this survey took to complete, (2) any items or wording that were hard to understand,
and (3) technical or editorial difficulties with filling out the survey.
Some of the participants in the second pilot test mentioned that the invitation letter for the
survey was somewhat long. They suggested inserting the link for the survey at the beginning of
the e-mail invitation to shorten the time needed to access the online survey instrument. One of
the testers provided several useful suggestions including allowing more spaces between lines for
high readability, making the questions more polite and less direct, and explaining the meaning of
intercultural experiences with examples. The researcher made changes in accordance with these
suggestions. Several participants pointed out the ambiguity in terms such as “significant level” or
“intercultural experiences.” In response to this concern, the item which asked, “prior to coming

77
to the U.S., did you have any significant intercultural experience outside of your country?” was
supplemented by an additional explanation, “travelling more than one month, living outside of
your country, communicating with foreign friends relatively for long period, etc.”
It was not possible to implement all of the good suggestions received from the second
pilot test. For example, one tester suggested providing the survey instrument in several different
languages or allowing the respondents to fill out the open-ended questions in their own
languages. The researcher deliberated this suggestion, but decided not to follow it because the
target population represented more than forty native languages, and some of these languages
were only spoken by one or two potential participants. It would not have been fair to provide the
survey in the languages of some potential participants but not others.
Lastly, some typographical errors that occurred in the process of developing the web-
based version were corrected during the second pilot test. Most participants responded that the
survey took around 15 minutes to complete, and they had positive comments about this research
and the survey instrument. The final version of the survey (see Appendix A) was developed
through multiple revisions based on the expert reviews and two pilot tests. Taking the advice of
one of the experts, this researcher used the concept of member checks by re-contacting some of
the pilot test participants to find out whether or not the problems or issues raised by the
participants had been well resolved. Although member checking is a technique often used in
qualitative research, it was also useful in this quantitative research to ensure the effectiveness of
the survey instrument. This instrument eventually was distributed to culturally and linguistically
diverse participants, dealt with several unfamiliar concepts, and required multiple revisions for
clarity.

78
Reliability Test
Evaluation of the consistency and stability of the instrument was necessary to ensure the
reliability of future use of the instrument. Using the results of the pilot tests, the researcher
calculated Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of inter-item consistency. Values of Cronbach’s alpha
range from 0 to 1.0, with a high score indicating that the items taken together to form the
instrument are reliable. From the 16 participants in the pilot tests, reliability coefficients for Part
2 – Intercultural communicative competence and Part 3- Instructional strategies for socially
engaged learning were calculated as .912 and .605, respectively. After data were collected from
213 participants, reliability was calculated again. The final Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for Part
2 and Part 3 were .853 and .817, respectively.
Data Collection
Because the research involved human subjects, this study was approved by the Virginia
Tech Institutional Review Board (IRB #10-077) prior to data collection (see Appendix D). In the
IRB research protocol and the text of the informed consent form, the researcher indicated that the
participants were free to choose whether or not to participate in the study, there was no
compensation for the students, and responses were confidential and anonymous. Also, the
participants were instructed to read the informed consent form before filling out the survey as
required by the IRB. The consent form indicated that participants were free not to answer any
questions that they did not want to answer; and they were free to end the survey at any time (see
Appendix E).
The final version of the web-based survey instrument was delivered by e-mail with an
invitation letter describing the purpose of the research, the criteria for participation, the estimated
time to fill out the questionnaire, information about confidentiality and anonymity, a link to the

79
web site containing the informed consent form, and a link to the web-based survey instrument.
Monica Gibson, the director of student services for the Virginia Tech Graduate School,
distributed the survey invitation to the target population by way of a listserv of international
graduate students (INTL_GRAD@LISTSERV.vt.edu) (see Appendix F). Messages sent through
this listserv were received by 1,636 international graduate students who were enrolled in spring
2010.
The first e-mail invitation was sent out on February 23, 2010 at 5:01 pm with the subject
“Opportunities for international graduate students.” On that date, about 30 respondents
participated. However, the response rate quickly dropped and other efforts were made to
encourage participation. The researcher sent out a reminder e-mail to international graduate
students and used a variation of the snowball sampling method. That is, the researcher contacted
international graduate students who met the criteria of the target population and asked them to
distribute the reminder e-mail to other international graduate students with whom they were
acquainted. This method was effective in increasing the response rate and a total of 147
responses were collected during the first period of data collection.
A second reminder was sent to the original 1,636 students through the INTL_GRAD
listserv on March 8, 2010 at 5:04 pm. The deadline for the survey was extended to March 10,
2010. Following the last reminder e-mail, 66 additional students participated in the survey, which
brought the final total of responses to 213. As a result, the response rate was calculated as13.01%.
The total responses for this study exceeded 100 cases, which Fraenkel and Wallen (2006)
indicated as the minimum sample size for descriptive statistics.

80
Data Analysis
After data collection was complete, quantitative data analysis was conducted. First, the
quantitative data from closed-ended questions were put into Microsoft Excel 2007 and the
statistical program, PASW Statistics version 18.0. The background information was used to
identify the demographic distribution of the survey respondents with frequencies and
percentages. The major analyses of this study were descriptive statistics to measure the
perception of NNS graduate students about intercultural communicative competence and
effective instructional design strategies for socially engaged learning. These statistics included
measures of central tendency, such as the mean and standard deviation (SD) of each item score
and the sum of items in the subcategories. In addition, t-tests and ANOVAs were used to detect
significant differences between two or more group means. These inferential statistics helped
check whether differences in perceptions of NNS graduate students existed among students with
different demographic backgrounds, academic disciplines, cultural origins, and previous
experience. Finally, the open-ended questions were analyzed to identify two issues: (1) other
intercultural communicative competences that were not included in Part 2 of the survey, and (2)
other instructional strategies that were not included in the items in Part 3.
Research Limitations
This study is limited to NNS graduate students in the context of a single institution,
Virginia Tech. That is, this study cannot be generalized to the situations of other universities.
Also, in regard to sampling for data collection, this study did not use a random sampling method.
Therefore, the results of the research also are limited in generalizing to the target population, all
Virginia Tech NNS graduate students. This study did not use a proportional sampling method to
ensure that the distribution of the sample would match the distribution of the target population

81
based on demographic details such as gender, degree, nationality, native language(s), and college
or major. As a result, the collected data do not represent fully the distribution of the target
population. Since this study also utilized the researcher’s personal social networking and
snowball sampling method to increase the response rate, the sample included a higher proportion
of students who were the same nationality as the researcher or who were in the same program.
Lastly, this study relied on the perceptions of NNS graduate students. This self-report method
has limitations in measuring accurate Competences and perceptions of respondents.

82
Chapter 4: Results
In Chapter 3, details of the general research design, research setting, target population,
instrument, considerations for research quality, data collection and analysis methods, and
research limitations were articulated. While Chapter 3 presented the research methodology used
in this study, Chapter 4 focuses on the results of the collected and analyzed data. This chapter
presents (1) the background characteristics of research participants, (2) the perceived
intercultural communicative competences, and (3) the perceived effectiveness of instructional
strategies for socially engaged learning.
Research Participants
The participants involved in this study were 213 international graduate students enrolled
in Virginia Tech graduate programs during the spring of 2010. Five responses were not included
in the final analysis because of incomplete surveys. Even though participants were informed that
the survey was confidential and anonymous, one respondent was concerned about the items
about personal background. The respondent stated, “This survey requires too much personal
information,” and did not finish the rest of the questionnaire. It is assumed that the respondent
believed that the researcher could easily determine his or her identity through the requested
personal information such as gender, degree, major, nationality, and native language. When the
five incomplete responses were excluded, the data for analysis consisted of a total of 208
responses out of 1,636 international graduate students. Therefore, the final response rate was
recalculated as 12.71%.
Background Characteristics
This section presents the background characteristics of survey participants. Of the 208
respondents, 131 (63%) were male and 77 (37%) were female. Over half of the students were

83
single (53.8%, n =112) and most of the others were married (44.2%, n=92). Two respondents
(1%) selected “other” as their marital status, stating “in relationship,” and two (1%) did not
answer this item. In regard to the age distribution, the largest number of participants were in the
20 to 29 range (47.1%, n=98) or the 30 to 39 range (47.1%, n=98). Few students were in the 40
to 49 age group (3.4%, n=7) or the 50 to 59 group (1.5%, n=3). Table 5 shows the distributions
of the demographic information of survey participants.
Table 5
Demographic Information of Survey Participants
Demographic Information Students in the
Sample Valid
Percent
Gender
Male 131 63.0
Female 77 37.0
Marital Status
Single 112 53.8
Married 92 44.2
Others 2 1.0
No response 2 1.0
Age
20 to 29 98 47.1
30 to 39 98 47.1
40 to 49 7 3.4
50 to 59 3 1.5
No response 2 0.9
The majority of respondents were doctoral students (78.8%, n=164) and the rest who
answered this item were master students (20.2%, n=42). Table 6 shows the distribution of the
academic disciplines of the survey participants. The largest group represented the college of
engineering (40.4%, n=84), followed by the college of science (16.3%, n=34), the college of
liberal arts and human sciences (13.5%, n=28), and the college of natural resources (6.7%,
n=14). The college of agricultural and life science and the college of business each had the same

84
number of participants (each 5.8%, n=12). The remaining participants represented architecture
and urban studies (5.3%, n=11), veterinary medicine (3.4%, n=7), and inter college (2.9%, n=6).
Participants listed 44 different majors, which are also shown in Table 6. The largest
group were in electrical and computer engineering (13.5%, n=28), followed by curriculum and
instruction (10.1%, n= 21), computer science (6.3%, n=13), mechanical engineering (4.8%,
n=10), public and international affairs (4.3%, n=9), industrial and systems engineering (4.3%,
n=9), civil and environmental engineering (3.8%, n=8), economics (3.4%, n=7), wood science
and forest products (2.9%, n=6), geosciences (2.9%, n=6), biomedical and veterinary sciences
(2.9%, n=6), and macromolecular science and engineering (2.4%, n=5). The remaining majors
(35.1%, n=73) were represented by fewer than five students each. Although seven participants
did not specify a major, this distribution demonstrates the diversity in academic backgrounds
within the sample.
The large proportion of students from the college of engineering was not a unique
phenomenon in the sample for this study. The distribution of participants’ colleges was similar to
that of the target population and of all graduate students at Virginia Tech. Table 7 allows
comparison of the college distributions of the sample participants, all graduate students, and all
international graduate students.

85
Table 6
Academic Discipline Background of Survey Participants
Academic Discipline Background Frequency Percent
Degree
Doctoral 164 78.8
Masters 42 20.2
Unspecified 2 1.0
College
Engineering 84 40.4
Science 34 16.3
Liberal Arts and Human Sciences 28 13.5
Natural Resources 14 6.7
Agricultural and Life Science 12 5.8
Business 12 5.8
Architecture and Urban Studies 11 5.3
Veterinary Medicine 7 3.4
Inter College 6 2.9
Major
Electrical and Computer Engineering 28 13.5
Curriculum and Instruction 21 10.1
Computer Science 13 6.3
Mechanical Engineering 10 4.8
Public and International Affairs 9 4.3
Industrial and Systems Engineering 9 4.3
Civil and Environmental Engineering 8 3.8
Economics 7 3.4
Wood Science and Forest Products 6 2.9
Geosciences 6 2.9
Biomedical and Veterinary Sciences 6 2.9
Macromolecular Science and Engineering 5 2.4
Others* 73 35.1
Unspecified 7 3.3
Note. Other majors include Hospitality and Tourism management, Management, Biomedical, Engineering and Sciences,
Geography, Chemistry, Agricultural and Applied Economics, Animal & Poultry Sciences, Engineering Science and Mechanics,
Psychology, Forestry, Biological Sciences, Physics, Mathematics, Food Science and Technology, Plant Pathology, Physiology,
and Weed Science, Architecture + Design, Business Information Technology, Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, Chemical
Engineering, Career and Technical Education, Science & Technology in Society, Statistics, Biological Systems Engineering,
Rural Economic Analysis, Finance, Insurance, and Business Law, Biological Systems Engineering, Mining and Minerals
Engineering, Myers-Lawson School of Construction, Engineering Education, Educational Research and Evaluation,
Communication, Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, and Genetics, Bioinformatics, and Computational Biology.

86
Table 7
College Proportion Comparison of Survey Participants with the Target Population
College All Graduate
students
International
Graduate Students
(Population)
International
Graduate Students
(Sample)
n % n % n %
Engineering 1,693 37 881 54 84 40
Science 590 13 252 15 34 16
Liberal Arts and Human Sciences 781 17 71 4 28 14
Natural Resources 160 4 42 3 14 7
Agricultural and Life Science 342 8 97 6 12 6
Business 294 6 120 7 12 6
Architecture and Urban Studies 333 7 68 4 11 5
Veterinary Medicine 88 2 27 2 7 3
Inter College 274 6 86 5 6 3
Survey participants were diverse in their cultural origins, as shown in Table 8. Of the
respondents who answered this question, the three largest groups were from the nations of South
Korea (26.5%, n=55), China (22.6%, n=47), and India (14.4%, n=30). After these nations,
smaller numbers of participants came from Iran (4.3%, n=9), Turkey (1.9%, n=4), Vietnam
(1.44%, n=3), Brazil (1.44%, n=3), Greece (1.44%, n=3), and Chile (1.44%, n=3). The remaining
48 responses (23.1%) were 35 nations represented by one or two students each.
As also shown in Table 8, 38 students (18.3%) had more than one native language.
Students with multiple native languages came from India, Persia, Malawi, South Africa,
Pakistan, Zambia, Tunisia, Kenya, and Switzerland, and five of these students listed three or
more native languages. The most prevalent native languages were Korean (n=57), Chinese
(n=46), and Hindi (n=20). Spanish ranked fourth (n=12) and Persian was fifth (n=9). Other
languages with at least four native speakers were Malayalam, Punjabi, Turkish, Arabic, Bengali,
Telugu, Marathi, and Urdu. The remaining 37 listed languages were relatively uncommon, with
an average of fewer than two native speakers per language.

87
Table 8
Cultural Origins of Survey Participants
Cultural Origins Frequency Percent
Nationality South Korea 55 26.5
China 47 22.6
India 30 14.4
Iran 9 4.3
Turkey 4 1.9
Vietnam 3 1.44
Brazil 3 1.44
Greece 3 1.44
Chile 3 1.44
Others1 48 23.1
No answer 3 1.44
Do you have more than one native language?
No 170 81.7
Yes 38 18.3
Native Language(s)
(n=242) Korean 57 23.5
Chinese 46 19.0
Hindi 20 8.2
Spanish 12 5.0
Persian (Farsi) 9 3.7
Malayalam 5 2.0
Punjabi 5 2.0
Turkish 4 1.7
Arabic 4 1.7
Bengali 4 1.7
Portuguese 4 1.7
Telugu 4 1.7
Marathi 4 1.7
Urdu 4 1.7
Others2 51 21.0
Language not listed 9 3.7
Note. 1. Other nations include Malawi, South Africa, Colombia, Peru, Taiwan, Pakistan, Honduras, Zambia, Spain, Ghana,
Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Nepal, Mexico, Kenya, Portugal, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Macedonia, Costa Rica, Philippines,
Nigeria, Tunisia, Iceland, Libya, Croatia, Canada, Egypt, Hungary, Thailand, Poland, Sri Lanka, Russia, and France.
2. Other native languages include Vietnamese, Greek, French, Tamil, Chichewa, Nepali, Kannada, Fanti, Twi, Bemba,
Bulgarian, German, Macedonian, Swahili, Thai, Polish, Kashmiri, Maithili, Marwari, Afrikaans, Sepedi, Xhosa,
Chitumbuka, Croatian, Azerbaijani, Gujarati, Hungarian, Icelandic, Indonesian, Kaonde, Setswana, Sinhala, Tumbuka,
Nyanja, Yoruba, Luo, and Russian.

88
The distribution of the larger nationality groups in the sample, including China, India,
South Korea, and Iran, was similar to the nationality distribution in the target population of
Virginia Tech international graduate students. Table 9 shows a comparison of the distribution of
nationalities between the target population, as represented by enrollment figures for fall 2009
(the last semester for which complete data were available), and the survey sample.
Table 9
Nationality Proportion Comparison of Survey Participants with the Target Population
Nationality
International Graduate
Students (Population) International Graduate
Students (Sample)
n % n %
Total 1692 100 208 100
India 572 33.81 30 14.4
China 419 24.76 47 22.6
South Korea 130 7.68 55 26.5
Iran 57 3.37 9 4.3
Other nations 514 30.38 64 30.8
No response 3 1.4
A majority of sample members had previous job experience (64.4%, n=134). Of these,
40.3% (n=54) had 3 years or less experience working in their field of study, 30.6% (n=41) had 3-
6 years of experience, 14.2% (n=19) had worked for 6-9 years, and 8.2% (n=11) had 9-12 years
of experience. The smallest proportion of students with relevant work experience had 12-15
years (1.5%, n=2), but a larger number of students had more than 15 years (4.5%, n=6).
In regard to how long they had been in the U.S., the most frequent response was more
than 5 years (27.4%, n=57). Thirty-three students reported being in the U.S. for less than 1 year
(15.9%), 43 (20.7%) were present for 1-2 years, 33 (15.9%) for 2-3 years, 21 (10.1%) for 3-4

89
years, and 20 (9.6%) for 4-5 years. Table 10 shows a summary of findings for previous work
experience and years living in the U.S.
Table 10
Previous Job Experiences and Years of Living in U.S.
Previous Experiences Students in the
Sample Valid
Percent
Previous job experience
N=208 Yes 134 64.4
No 74 35.6
Years of working
experience 0-3 years 54 40.3
N=134 3-6 years 41 30.6
6-9 years 19 14.2
9-12 years 11 8.2
12-15 years 2 1.5
More than 15 years 6 4.5
No answer 1 0.7
Years of living in U.S.
N=208 less than 1 year 33 15.9
1-2 years 43 20.7
2-3 years 33 15.9
3-4 years 21 10.1
4-5 years 20 9.6
More than 5 years 57 27.4
No answer 1 0.4
Most respondents indicated that they had English language preparation prior to coming to
the U.S. (96.6%, n=200). More than half of the students (54.8%, n=114) said they had no
previous experience with intercultural situations, and the remaining 45.2% (n=94) indicated they
had such prior intercultural experiences. In the wording of this question, the term intercultural
experience was defined as traveling abroad for more than one month, living outside of their
country, communicating with foreign friends relatively for long period, or similar experiences. In
response to a question about the location and length of previous intercultural experiences, a large

90
number of respondents (39.4%, n=82) provided relatively specific and detailed information.
Participants reported living, traveling, working, or studying in the U.S., Europe, Japan, and
Canada, among other places. Purposes for visiting other cultures included achievement of a
degree, participating in a student exchange program, and language learning. The durations of
these experiences ranged from 6 weeks to 15 years. In addition to their experiences visiting other
countries, six participants mentioned communicating with foreign friends in their working
environment, college life, or personal relationships, while they were in their home countries.
Table 11
Previous Language Preparation and Intercultural Experience
Intercultural Experiences Frequency Percent
English language education
Yes 200 96.1
No 7 3.4
No response 1 0.5
Intercultural experiences
Yes 94 45.2
No 114 54.8
Places of intercultural experiences
N=82 U.S 18 22.0
Europe 7 8.5
Japan 5 6.1
Canada 5 6.1
Others 47 57.3
Duration of intercultural
experiences more than 6 years 9 11.0
N=82 3-6 years 8 9.8
2-3 years 12 14.6
1-2 years 14 17.1
6-12 months 10 12.2
2-6 months 17 20.7
less than 2 months 12 14.6

91
Intercultural Communicative Competences
This section presents the results of the first research question: what are the perceptions of
NNS graduate students in regard to their intercultural communicative competence (ICC)? To
answer this question, responses to the second part of the survey were analyzed to determine the
level of ICC perceived by NNS graduate students who participated in the study. The ICC scale
was composed of 20 items that measured five categories: (1) attitude, (2) skills, (3)
awareness/knowledge, (4) adaptability/flexibility, and (5) effective and appropriate
communication. Results will be presented on the overall level of ICC followed by a breakdown
by the five sub-categories. This section will also provide comparisons of perceived ICC levels
for different participants based on background characteristics.
Overall ICC Levels of NNS Graduate Students
The ICC level is a composite scale score obtained by averaging the 20 ICC item scores
on the survey instrument. As shown in Table 12, participants perceived themselves as having a
moderately high level of ICC (Mean=3.84, SD=0.46). This self-reported scale was measured on
a six-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = lowest competence to 5 = highest competence.
Interestingly, in the sub-factors’ ICC levels, the average of attitude (Mean=4.23, SD=0.51) was
higher than any other element, including skills (Mean=3.66, SD=0.79) and awareness/knowledge
(Mean=3.80, SD=0.79).
At the individual level, this result implies that NNS graduate students tend to have higher
levels of competence in their attitudes, but they are relatively less competent in knowledge and
skills for intercultural communication. In the interactional aspect of ICC, participants revealed
higher competence for internal outcomes (Mean=3.83, SD=0.63) than for external outcomes
(Mean=3.70, SD=207).

92
Table 12
ICC level perceived by NNS Graduate Participants
Factors Mean SD N
Overall 3.84 0.46 208
Individual Aspect Attitude 4.23 0.51 208
Skills 3.66 0.79 208
Awareness/Knowledge 3.80 0.64 207
Interactional Aspect Internal Outcome 3.83 0.63 205
External Outcome 3.70 0.66 207
Perceived ICC Levels from Five Factors
Table 13 shows each factor of ICC broken down into sub-factors with their composite
scores. The score for respect and openness (Mean=4.48, SD=0.59) was found to be higher than
for curiosity and discovery (Mean=3.97, SD=0.71). Acquisitive skills (Mean=3.93, SD=0.79)
has a higher mean than applicative skills (Mean=3.38, SD=0.93). The score for cultural
knowledge (Mean=3.49, SD=0.76) was lower than for sociolinguistic knowledge (Mean=4.11,
SD=0.71). The effective communication score (Mean=3.57, SD=0.81) was lower than the mean
score for appropriate communication (Mean=3.98, SD=0.78).
Table 13
Five Factors of ICC Perceived by NNS Graduate Participants
Factors Mean SD N
Attitude
Respect & Openness 4.48 0.59 208
Curiosity & Discovery 3.97 0.71 207
Skills
Acquisitive [input] 3.93 0.79 208
Applicative [output] 3.38 0.93 208
Awareness / Knowledge
Cultural knowledge 3.49 0.76 207
Sociolinguistic knowledge 4.11 0.71 206
Internal Outcomes
Adaptability 3.65 0.70 205
Flexibility 4.01 0.70 205
External Outcomes
Effective communication 3.57 0.81 207
Appropriate communication 3.98 0.78 206

93
Attitude. Table 14 provides a summary of the responses on attitude related items. More
than half of the participants (63.9%, n=133) strongly agreed that they try to respect people from
different cultures (Mean=4.61, SD=0.56). About half of the participants (50.7%, n=105) strongly
agreed that they try not to judge people because of a different culture (Mean=4.36, SD=0.81). On
the other hand, 45.6% of survey participants (n=94 merely agreed that they tried to accept that
sometimes they would not understand differences between cultures (Mean=4.21, SD=0.85). The
majority of respondents agreed (39.1%, n=81) or slightly agreed (27.1%, n=56) that they looked
for opportunities to interact with culturally different people (Mean=3.73, SD=1.06).
Table 14
Attitude Perceived by NNS Graduate Participants
Attitude
(I am trying to) Frequency (unit=n, %)1, 2 M SD N
0 1 2 3 4 5
Respect & Openness
1. respect people from different
cultures including their language,
values, history and traditions.
1 5 69 133 4.61 0.56 208
0.5 2.4 33.2
63.9
2. not judge people because they are
from a different culture. 1 1 3 18 79 105 4.36 0.81 207
0.5 0.5 1.4 8.7 38.2 50.7
Curiosity & Discovery
3. accept that there are some times
that I may not always understand
differences between cultures.
1 2 5 20 94 84 4.21 0.85 206
0.5 1 2.4 9.7 45.6 40.8
4. look for opportunities to interact
with culturally different people. 2 8 9 56 81 51 3.73 1.06 207
1 3.9 4.3
27.1 39.1 24.6
Note. 1) The above number on the frequency column indicates the number of students, and the below number with italic style
indicates the valid percentage.
2) The frequency was counted based on 6-point Likert scale indicating: 0=strongly disagree, 1=disagree, 2=slightly
disagree, 3=slightly agree, 4=agree, and 5=strongly agree.
Skills. Table 15 shows the results of responses on skill related items. More than half of
the respondents (51.5%, n=106) agreed that they recognized cultural differences (Mean=4.15,
SD=0.72). For the item about listening and reading skills in English, participants revealed broad

94
agreement (Mean=3.72, SD=1.21), with 38.5% indicating they agreed that they were able to
listen to long speeches and read articles in English without much effort or difficulty. For the
same item, 27.9% expressed strong agreement, 20.2% slight agreement, 7.7% slight
disagreement, 2.4% disagreement, and 3.4% strong disagreement. In regard to applicative skill, a
large proportion of respondents (44%, n=91) slightly agreed that they could interpret different
signs (e.g., gestures, visual marks) or language (e.g., local expressions or phrases) from different
cultures (Mean=3.16, SD=0.9). There was a broad distribution of responses for the item on
English speaking and writing skills in the area of study, with 24.4% indicating strong agreement,
37.6% agreement, 21% slight agreement, 10.7% slight disagreement, 5.4% disagreement, and 1%
strong disagreement.
Table 15
Skills Perceived by NNS Graduate Participants
Skills
(I am able to…) Frequency (unit=n, %) M SD N
0 1 2 3 4 5
Acquisitive Skill: Input
5. recognize cultural differences
between my own and other
cultures.
4 29 106 67 4.15 0.72
206
1.9 14.1 51.5 32.5
6. listen to long speech and read
articles in English without
difficulties.
7 5 16 42 80 58 3.72 1.21 208
3.4 2.4 7.7 20.2 38.5 27.9
Applicative Skill: Output
7. interpret different signs or
languages from different
cultures.
17 22 91 64 13 3.16 0.99 207
8.2 10.6 44 30.9 6.3
8. speak and write subjects related to
my area of study in English
without difficulties.
2 11 22 43 77 50 3.62 1.18 205
1 5.4 10.7 21 37.6 24.4

95
Awareness and knowledge. Table 16 provides the results of responses on awareness or
knowledge related items. For the item about awareness of others’ cultural characteristics, 41.5%
expressed slight agreement, 36.1% agreement, and 8.3% strong agreement (Mean=3.36,
SD=0.89). Compared to other items, a relatively large number of students expressed slight
disagreement (11.2%, n=23) or disagreement (2.9%, n=6) for this item. On the other hand,
participants revealed a higher awareness or knowledge of important historical and socio-political
factors that have shaped the relationships of their own countries with other countries (Mean=3.62,
SD=.85). For this item, 48.3% agreed, 30.7% slightly agreed, 12.2% strongly agreed, 7.3%
slightly disagreed, and 1.5% disagreed. In regard to sociolinguistic knowledge, most participants
asserted that they understood the value of cultural diversity, with 44.6% indicating strong
agreement, 43.6% agreement, and 9.8 % slight agreement (Mean=4.30, SD=0.75). Also, a large
proportion of students indicated awareness of the social characteristics of language, as 46.8%
agreed, 26.8% strongly agreed, and 4.4% slightly agreed with the item (Mean=3.93, SD=0.88).
Table 16
Awareness and Knowledge Perceived by NNS Graduate Participants
Awareness/Knowledge
(I am aware of … or I understand … ) Frequency (unit =n, %) M SD N
0 1 2 3 4 5
Cultural knowledge
9. other’s cultural characteristics
(e.g., worldview, norms, customs,
taboos, greetings, etc.)
6 23 85 74 17
3.36 0.89 205
2.9 11.2 41.5 36.1 8.3
10. the important history and socio-
political factors that have shaped
the relationship of my own and
other countries
3 15 63 99 25 3.62 0.85 205
1.5 7.3 30.7 48.3 12.2
Sociolinguistic knowledge 1 3 20 89 91 4.30 0.75 204
11. the value of cultural diversity 0.5 1.5 9.8 43.6 44.6
12. the social characteristics of
language. 3 9 42 96 55 3.93 0.88 205
1.5 4.4 20.5 46.8 26.8

96
Internal outcomes. Table 17 displays the results of responses to the adaptability and
flexibility related items. More than half of the respondents (52.7%, n=107) indicated agreement
that they were able to use appropriate strategies for adjusting to the new cultural environment
(Mean=3.77, SD=0.79). Similarly, a large proportion of respondents (45.3%, n=82) agreed that
they were able to change their own behavior to relate to what they learned about a new culture
(Mean=3.53, SD=.88). For both of these adaptability items, the vast majority of responses fell
between slight agreement and strong agreement. Responses to the items on flexibility were
similar to adaptability, though they had slightly higher means. Over half of the respondents
(52.2%, n=107) agreed that they considered others’ feelings, emotions, situations, or thoughts
and used this consideration for effective communication (Mean=4.04, SD=0.78). Also, 53.2%
agreed, 24.1% strongly agreed, and 18.2% slightly agreed that they reflected upon their
interaction with others and used the reflection for future communication and interactions
(Mean=3.97, SD=0.78).
Table 17
Adaptability and Flexibility perceived by NNS Graduate Participants
Internal Outcome
(I am able to… ) Frequency (unit=n, %) M SD N
0 1 2 3 4 5
Adaptability
13. use appropriate strategies for adjusting to
the new cultural environment. 1 11 53 107 31 3.77 0.79 203
0.5 5.4 26.1 52.7 15.3
14. change my own behavior to relate to
what I learn about new culture. 2 2 15 72 82 20 3.53 0.88 203
1 1 7.4 35.5 45.3 9.9
Flexibility
15. consider other’s feeling, emotion,
situation, or thoughts and use the
consideration for effective
communication.
16 34 107 57 4.04 0.78 205
0.5 2.9 16.6 52.2 27.8
16. reflect upon my interaction with others
and use the reflection for future
communication and interactions.
9 37 108 49 3.97 0.78 203
4.4 18.2 53.2 24.1

97
External outcomes. Table 18 provides the results of responses on items related to
communication. In regard to effective communication, more than half of respondents (52.4%,
n=108) indicated agreement that they were able to achieve their goals by communicating
effectively with culturally different people (Mean=3.65, SD=0.85). A large proportion of
respondents (48.1%, n=99) agreed that they were able to solve problems effectively when
miscommunication or misunderstanding occurred (Mean=3.49, SD=0.93). Most of the responses
to these two items ranged from slight agreement to agreement. In comparison, the two items on
appropriate communication drew more responses of strong agreement. For the item on being able
to avoid violating important rules in a particular culture, 31.3% strongly agreed, 46.8% agreed,
and 13.9% slightly agreed (Mean=3.95, SD=0.90). Most respondents expressed some level of
agreement that they could interact appropriately in a variety of situations within the new
environment, as 25.5% strongly agreed, 52.2% agreed, and 15.8% slightly agreed (Mean=3.95,
SD=0.90).
Table 18
Communication Ability Perceived by NNS Graduate Participants
External Outcome
(I am able to …) Frequency (unit=n, %) M SD N
0 1 2 3 4 5
Effective communication
17. achieve my goals by communicating
effectively with culturally different
people.
4 15 55 108 24 3.65 0.85 206
1.9 7.3 26.7 52.4 11.7
18. solve problems effectively when
miscommunication or
misunderstanding occurs.
7 22 59 99 19 3.49 0.93 206
3.4 10.7 28.6 48.1 9.2
Appropriate communication
19. avoid violating important rules in the
particular culture. 1 4 11 28 94 63 3.99 0.97 201
0.5 2 5.5 13.9 46.8 31.3
20. interact appropriately in a variety of
situations within the new culture. 2 1 10 32 106 52 3.95 0.90 203
1 0.5 4.9 15.8 52.2 25.6

98
Group Differences in ICC Levels of NNS Graduate Students
This section presents the results of analysis of group differences in ICC levels across
participants’ background characteristics. The levels of ICC and its sub-factors were analyzed
across (1) demographic backgrounds, (2) academic discipline backgrounds, (3) cultural origins,
and (4) previous experiences. Significance of observed differences between groups was assessed
by the use of t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures.
Demographic backgrounds. As shown in Table 19, although the mean perceived ICC
level for female participants (3.90, SD=0.45) was higher than that of male participants (3.81,
SD=0.45), the difference between genders was not significant (t=-1.36, p >.05). Grouping by
marital status also returned a non-significant result (t=-1.52, p >.05), with single students
(Mean=3.89, SD=0.48) having a slightly higher perceived ICC level than married students
(Mean=3.79, SD=0.44). When three age groups were compared by ANOVA, the 40-59 age
group (Mean=4.15, SD=0.46) had a higher perceived ICC level than the 20-29 group
(Mean=3.85, SD=0.44) and the 30-39 group (Mean=3.80, SD=0.48). However, this difference
was not statistically significant (F=2.68, p >.05).
Table 19
ICC level Differences across Demographic Backgrounds
Mean SD N t F Sig.
Gender
Female 3.90 0.45 77 -1.36 .18
Male 3.81 0.47 131
Marital Status
Single 3.89
0.48 112 -1.52 .13
Married 3.79 0.44 92
Age
20-29 3.85 0.44 98 2.68 .07
30-39 3.80 0.48 98
40-59 4.15
0.46 10

99
While the overall ICC level was not significantly different across gender, marital status,
and age, the scores from several specific sub-factors or items did reveal statistically significant
differences across demographic characteristics. As shown in Table 20, significant differences
were found for gender on the items related to adaptability and flexibility (t=-2.9, p <.05), with
females (Mean=3.85, SD=0.63) scoring higher than males (Mean=3.53, SD=0.71). In the area of
applicative skill, particularly the ability to interpret different signs (e.g., gestures, visual marks)
or languages (e.g., local expressions or phrases) from different cultures, a significant difference
was found for marital status (t=2.75, p <.05). Single participants (Mean=3.55, SD=0.87) tended
to score higher on this item than married participants (Mean=3.20, SD=0.93). ANOVA revealed
significant differences among age groups on acquisitive skill, specifically the ability to listen to
long speeches and read articles in English without difficulties (F=3.78, p <.05). The mean for
those over 40 years of age (Mean=4.50, SD=0.85) was significantly higher than the means for
the younger groups, ages 20-29 (Mean=3.82, SD=1.15) and 30-39 (Mean=3.52, SD=1.27).
Table 20
Different Levels of ICC Sub Factors across Demographic Backgrounds
Factors of ICC Backgrounds Mean SD N t F Sig.
Adaptability
& Flexibility Gender
Female 3.85 0.63 75 -2.9 .003*
Male 3.53 0.71 130
Applicative Skill
Marital Status
Single 3.55 0.87 112 2.75 .007*
Married 3.20 0.93 92
Acquisitive Skill
(Question 6) Age
20-29 3.82 1.15 98 3.78 .020*
30-39 3.52 1.27 98
40-59 4.50 0.85 10
Note. *p <.05

100
Academic discipline backgrounds. As shown in Table 21, master students (Mean=3.96,
SD=0.39) had a higher overall ICC level than doctoral students (Mean=3.81, SD=0.48).
However, this difference was not statistically significant (t=1.96, p >.05). No significant
differences were found in overall ICC levels among the different colleges (F=0.49, p >.05) and
different majors (F=1.72, p >.05).
Table 21
ICC level Differences across Academic Discipline Background
Academic Backgrounds Mean SD N t F Sig.
Degree
Master(s) 3.96 0.39 42 1.96 .051
Doctoral 3.81 0.48 164
College
Agriculture and Life Science 3.83 0.60 12 0.49 .860
Architecture and Urban Studies 3.98 0.44 11
Business 3.89 0.32 12
Engineering 3.80 0.52 84
Liberal Arts and Human Sciences 3.90 0.44 28
Natural Resources 3.88 0.44 14
Science 3.80 0.42 34
Veterinary Medicine 3.97 0.18 7
Interdisciplinary 4.01 0.37 6
Majors
Computer Science 3.57 0.53 13 1.72 .170
Electrical and Computer Engineering 3.77 0.53 28
Mechanical Engineering 4.04 0.53 10
Curriculum and Instruction 3.86 0.45 24
In contrast to the lack of statistical significance among academic backgrounds in overall
perceived ICC, significant differences were discovered in several specific factors or items. As
Table 22 presents, master students (Mean=3.64, SD=0.83) scored significantly higher in
applicative skills (t=2.09, p <.05) than doctoral students (Mean=3.31, SD=0.95). A similar

101
difference was found with regard to perceived adaptability (t=2.83, p <.01), with master students
(Mean=4.08, SD=0.59) scoring higher than doctoral students (Mean=3.69, SD=0.81).
To facilitate comparisons among colleges, the colleges were divided into two groups.
Group A included Architecture and Urban Studies, Business, and Liberal Arts and Human
Sciences, and Group B included Agriculture and Life Science, Engineering, Natural Resources,
and Science. A significant difference was found between the two groups on socio-linguistic
knowledge (t=2.13, p <.05), with Group A (Mean=4.28, SD=0.67) having higher scores than
Group B (Mean=4.08, SD=0.81). The four most popular majors were compared by ANOVA
which revealed significant differences in items related to awareness and knowledge (F=2.99, p
<.05). Computer Science (Mean=3.35, SD=0.80) and Electrical & Computer Engineering
(Mean=3.69, SD=0.68) majors scored lower on these items than Mechanical Engineering
(Mean=4.00, SD=0.57) and Curriculum & Instruction (Mean=3.98, SD=0.55) majors.
Table 22
Sub-Factors of ICC Level Differences across Academic Discipline Background
Factors of ICC Academic Backgrounds Mean SD N t F Sig.
Applicative
Skills Degree Master(s) 3.64 0.83 42 2.09 .037*
Doctoral 3.31 0.95 164
Adaptability
Degree Master(s)
4.08 0.59 38 2.83 .006*
Doctoral 3.69 0.81 163
Sociolinguistic
Knowledge College Group A1 4.28 0.67 51 2.13 .034*
Group B
2 4.08 0.73 142
Awareness &
Knowledge Major Computer Science 3.35 0.80 13 2.99 .040*
Electrical & Computer
Engineering 3.69 0.68 28
Mechanical Engineering 4.00 0.57 10
Curriculum & Instruction 3.98 0.55 21
Note. *p <.05
1. Group A is the sum of Architecture and Urban Studies, Business, and Liberal Arts and Human Sciences.
2. Group B is the sum of Agriculture and Life Science, Engineering, Natural Resources, and Science

102
Cultural Origins. As shown in Table 23, students from India (Mean=4.00, SD=0.37) and
other countries (Mean=4.03, SD=0.44) revealed a higher overall level of ICC than Korean
(Mean=3.60, SD=0.43) or Chinese students (Mean=3.72, SD=0.43). These differences were
statistically significant (F=13.57, p <.001). Also, students who had more than one native
language (Mean=4.00, SD=0.45) had a higher perceived level of ICC than students who had a
single native language (Mean=3.81, SD=0.46).
Table 23
ICC Level Differences across Cultural Origins
Cultural Origins Mean SD N t F Sig.
Nationality
India 4.00 0.37 30 13.57 .000*
China 3.72 0.44 47
Korea 3.60 0.43 55
Other countries 4.03 0.44 76
More than one
native language Yes 4.00 0.45 38 2.31 .022*
No 3.81 0.46 170
Note. *p <.05
The results shown in Table 23 were for overall ICC. More detail is provided by Table 24
which presents the results of comparisons within sub-categories across cultural origins. That is,
the differences among India, China, Korea, and other countries were statistically significant in
the following sub-categories of ICC: respect and openness (F=2.70, p <.01), acquisitive skill
(F=18.47, p <.01), applicative skill (F=16.36, p <.001), cultural knowledge (F=5.31, p <.01),
adaptability (F=4.14, p <.01), flexibility (F=3.94, p <.01), and effective communication (F=9.54,
p <.01).

103
Table 24
Sub-Factors of ICC Level Differences across Cultural Origins
Sub factors of ICC Nationality Mean SD N F Sig.
Respect & Openness
India 4.43 0.47 30 2.70 .000*
China 4.57 0.52 47
Korean 4.31 0.68 55
Other countries 4.57 0.58 76
Curiosity and Discovery
India 3.87 0.68 30 1.794 0.15
China 4.03 0.70 47
Korean 3.82 0.68 54
Other countries 4.09 0.73 76
Acquisitive Skill
India 4.40 0.42 30 18.47 .000*
China 3.64 0.74 47
Korean 3.50 0.78 55
Other countries 4.23 0.72 76
Applicative Skill
India 4.03 0.51 30 16.36 .000*
China 2.97 0.97 47
Korean 3.00 0.88 55
Other countries 3.66 0.84 76
Cultural Knowledge
India 3.57 0.62 29 5.31 .002*
China 3.40 0.80 47
Korean 3.21 0.69 55
Other countries 3.71 0.76 76
Sociolinguistic Knowledge
India 4.11 0.61 28 1.66 .176
China 3.96 0.73 47
Korean 4.07 0.77 55
Other countries 4.24 0.69 76
Adaptability
India 3.89 0.73 27 4.14 .007*
China 3.50 0.69 47
Korean 3.47 0.61 55
Other countries 3.79 0.71 76
Flexibility
India 4.22 0.54 27 3.94 .009*
China 3.90 0.66 47
Korean 3.80 0.75 55
Other countries 4.14 0.69 76

104
Sub factors of ICC Nationality Mean SD N F Sig.
Effective Communication
India 3.78 0.70 29 9.54 .000*
China 3.36 0.84 47
Korean 3.22 0.80 55
Other countries 3.86 0.70 76
Appropriate Communication
India 3.91 0.73 29 .431 .731
China 4.04 0.76 47
Korean 3.90 0.64 54
Other countries 4.02 0.90 76
Note. *p <.05
Previous experiences. The job experience of NNS graduate participants was not related to
the overall ICC level (t=4.1, p >.05). As shown in Table 25, there was no difference in the
average of ICC level between participants who had job experiences (Mean=3.85, SD=0.48) and
those who had no job experience (Mean=3.83, SD=0.44). This result was confirmed through a
comparison of the ICC levels across participants’ length of working experience. Although the
analysis showed that the longer participants had been working in their professional field, the
more they agreed with the items indicating intercultural communicative competence, this
increased ICC level did not show dramatic or statistically significant differences (F=0.99,
p > .05). In regard to how long participants have lived in the U.S, no pattern was found in the
overall ICC level and there was no significant difference (F=0.49, p >.05).
Although participants who had intercultural experiences prior to coming to the U.S.
(Mean = 3.9, SD=0.47) revealed higher perceptions of intercultural communication than
participants who did not have significant prior intercultural experiences (Mean=3.8, SD=0.46),
the difference was not statistically significant or meaningful (t=1.6, p >.05).

105
Table 25
ICC Level Differences across Previous Experiences
Previous experiences Mean SD N t F Sig.
Job Experiences
Yes 3.85 0.48 134 .41 .68
No 3.83 0.44 74
Years of working experiences
0-3 years 3.81 0.48 54 0.99 0.42
3-6 years 3.80 0.48 41
6-9 years 3.88 0.52 19
9-12 years 3.90 0.40 11
12-15 years 4.08 0.25 2
more than 15 years 4.22 0.42 6
Years of living in U.S.
less than 1year 3.79 0.47 33 0.49 0.78
1-2 years 3.91 0.42 43
2-3 years 3.77 0.54 33
3-4 years 3.82 0.55 21
4-5 years 3.83 0.49 20
more than 5 years 3.87 0.41 57
Intercultural experiences
Yes 3.90 0.47 94 1.6 .110
No 3.80 0.46 114
The differences across participants’ previous experiences were more dramatically
revealed when looking at the sub-factors of ICC level. As shown in Table 26, participants who
had more than 6 years of working experience were more confident than those with less
experience in knowledge about the social characteristics of language (F=4.43, p <.05),
adaptability in the use of appropriate strategies for adjusting to the new cultural environment
(F=6.24, p <.05), and flexibility in considering others’ feelings, emotions, situations, or thoughts
and the consideration of these for effective communication (F=7.42, p <.05). However,
participants with less than 6 years working experience perceived higher competence in
interacting appropriately in a variety of situations within the new culture (F=2.96, p <.05).

106
There was a difference in acceptance that there were some times that they may not
understand differences between cultures, by the number of years in the U.S (F=2.68, p <.05).
Participants living in the U.S. for 3 to 4 years (Mean =4.05, SD=1.97) had more competence in
this item than those with either more or fewer years in the U.S. Students with previous
intercultural experience (Mean=3.38, SD=0.92) presented more competence in interpreting signs
or languages from different cultures (F=2.69, p <.01) than those without such experience.
Table 26
Sub Factors of ICC across Previous Experiences
Factors Previous experiences Mean SD N t F Sig.
Awareness
& Knowledge Working
(Question 12) less than 6 years 3.81 0.98 93 4.43 0.037*
more than 6 years 4.18 0.80 38
Adaptability
(Question 13) Working
less than 6 years 3.66 0.87 94 6.24 0.014*
more than 6 years 4.15 0.66 38
Flexibility
(Question15) Working
less than 6 years 3.90 0.80 94 7.42 .007*
more than 6 years 4.32 0.74 38
Appropriateness
(Question20 ) Working
less than 6 years 4.13 0.79 92 4.49 .036*
more than 6 years 3.76 1.13 38
Attitude
(Question 4) Living
in U.S. less than 1year 3.82 1.10 33 2.68 .023*
1-2 years 3.93 0.86 43
2-3 years 3.85 0.91 33
3-4 years
4.05 1.07 21
4-5 years 3.84 0.90 19
more than 5 years 3.32 1.23 57
Skill
(Question7) Intercultural Yes 3.38 0.92 94 2.96 .003*
Experiences No 2.98 1.01 113

107
Other Competences for ICC Identified by Participants
At the close of Part 2: Intercultural Communication, participants were asked to offer
open-ended comments for identifying other abilities that were not listed in the survey which they
felt were important for non-native English speaking graduate students. Valuable comments on
this question were made by 27 participants. Theme analysis, a technique utilized in qualitative
research, was conducted to divide participants’ comments into several categories. In carefully
reviewing the responses, it was found that the comments were related to the dimensions and
components that had already been identified for the present study: (1) attitude, (2) skill, (3)
knowledge/awareness, (4) adaptability/flexibility, and (5) effective and appropriate
communication.
Attitude. Some participants emphasized the individual’s attitude toward intercultural
communication. Their comments pointed to the need for attitude change in different directions.
For example, one participant listed the importance of assertiveness and pointed out the lack of
assertiveness among non-native speakers. This person stated:
In many cultures, outside of the U.S., assertiveness, particularly when communicating
with older people or superiors in one's profession, can be easily perceived as lack of
respect. This attitude, I believe, often hinders the ability of non-natives in U.S. from
presenting their points of view clearly.
In another perspective, one respondent stated that NNS graduate students need “humility to
accept corrections without feeling offended”. Another respondent emphasized the importance of
openness to others’ opinions and thoughts. To sum up the attitude related responses, a balance
between assertiveness and openness should be considered an important competence that NNS
graduate students need as they experience and study in a new culture and environment.

108
Skills. Few participants made skill related comments in comparison to other categories. In
regard to acquisitive skill in recognizing cultural differences, one respondent said that “I am
sensitive to the way I behave to people from different cultures.” However, several respondents
pointed out the importance of interpretation skill. One respondent reemphasized the ability to
interpret “the gesture, local expressions or phrases” and another respondent stated “slangs are
difficult to follow.” In addition, one respondent stated that NNS graduate students also need to
know “how to let [people] know [their] own culture and let [others] understand [their] weird
behaviors.” This comment emphasized the importance of increased understanding of other
cultures by members of the host culture, as well as understanding or interpretation of different
cultural signs or languages.
Awareness and knowledge. There were common opinions about the importance of
understanding and considering others’ religion. Several respondents pointed out the
consideration of religious behavior. For example, one respondent stated that some of people
from the Middle East and India are dealing with “food issues and things not to do among them.”
Another respondent asserted that such “individuals’ religious background strongly affects one’s
ability to successfully accomplish graduate level studies.”
Adaptability and flexibility. Several participants pointed out the ability to truly enjoy the
new culture and environment by building up new social networks. One respondent stated that
NNS graduate students need to “build up [their] own social network in a brand new environment
within an appropriate time frame, inside and outside [their] academic field.” As an example, one
respondent mentioned the “ability to join social events such as a kind of party or meeting.” It was
also said by one respondent that enjoying the new culture is required “[to] see the beauty and [to]
tolerate the differences of the other culture to [their] own cultures.” In regard to building new

109
social networks, one respondent addressed the ability “to make … meaningful friendship with
people from other culture,” and another respondent addressed good “relationship and
communication with professors or advisors.” Another comment was that one needs “to be [fully
immersed] and [effectively interacted] with people outside their communities.”
Effective and appropriate communication. Some participants emphasized the external
outcome of intercultural communication. For example, one respondent listed the ability for
“[effective] collaboration, spirit of team work, [and] an open mind to accept views conflicting to
his/her own.” Another respondent pointed out a concern about appropriate communication,
stating that “sometimes it is confusing for me to know whether the way I'm behaving/interacting
with cross-culture is appropriate or not as I, sometimes, can't distinguish the responses whether
my behavior/approach was right or wrong.”
Some comments were not able to be incorporated into the above five dimensions. Several
respondents pointed out that intercultural communication was related to the individual’s
personality and self-efficacy or confidence. In addition, several participants used the space to
reveal suggestions or concerns for this research, or to share their general thoughts in relation to
intercultural communication. One respondent was concerned about the practice of a single