Cultural Intelligence in EFL and ESP Learners: Metacognitive, Cognitive, Motivational, and Behavioral Knowledge

Abstract

One of the most significant current discussions in language learning is cultural intelligence. is research aims to study cultural learning determinants in EFL and ESP learners concerning their metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral knowledge toward cultural intelligence in Iran. e studies so far indicate that cultural intelligence in EFL and ESP learners has not received as much attention as warranted. Moreover, rare studies have been done in this regard in the Iranian context. In this descriptive study, a nonrandom sampling method was applied to 323 university students who were 116 EFL learners (M.A and B.A English language students of Zanjan and Islamic Azad University) and 207 ESP (from the Zanjan University of Medical Sciences). e questionnaire was valid because it was standardized, and its reliability was checked via Cronbach's alpha (p < 0.000). e result of data analysis showed that EFL students have more cultural intelligence compared to medical students. us, based on the results, the teachers should consider the importance of cultural factors in their classes. Regarding pedagogical implications, the findings of this study can be of great help to book designers, schoolteachers, and university lecturers.

Full text

Research Article
Cultural Intelligence in EFL and ESP Learners: Metacognitive,
Cognitive, Motivational, and Behavioral Knowledge
Vahid Karami and Siros Izadpanah
Department of English Language Teaching, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran
Correspondence should be addressed to Siros Izadpanah; cyrosizadpanah@yahoo.com
Received 6 November 2021; Revised 13 February 2022; Accepted 21 February 2022; Published 25 March 2022
Academic Editor: Ehsan Rezvani
Copyright ©2022 Vahid Karami and Siros Izadpanah. is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
One of the most significant current discussions in language learning is cultural intelligence. is research aims to study cultural
learning determinants in EFL and ESP learners concerning their metacognitive, cognitive, motivational, and behavioral
knowledge toward cultural intelligence in Iran. e studies so far indicate that cultural intelligence in EFL and ESP learners has not
received as much attention as warranted. Moreover, rare studies have been done in this regard in the Iranian context. In this
descriptive study, a nonrandom sampling method was applied to 323 university students who were 116 EFL learners (M.A and B.A
English language students of Zanjan and Islamic Azad University) and 207 ESP (from the Zanjan University of Medical Sciences).
e questionnaire was valid because it was standardized, and its reliability was checked via Cronbach’s alpha (p<0.000). e
result of data analysis showed that EFL students have more cultural intelligence compared to medical students. us, based on the
results, the teachers should consider the importance of cultural factors in their classes. Regarding pedagogical implications, the
findings of this study can be of great help to book designers, schoolteachers, and university lecturers.
1. Introduction
e relationship between culture and language has been
studied by scholars [1, 2]. Different viewpoints are against or
integrating culture in L2 teaching [3–6]. Scovel [7] and
Makhmudov [8] agreed that culture and language are in-
separable. As Duan [9] and Grossberg [10] suggest, the
requisite for cultural literacy in ELT is primary because
language learners will face significant obstacles in getting
themselves across to local speakers. Ritlyova [11], Almutairi
[12], and Richards and Schmidt [13] believe that the students
expand both their perception of a foreign culture and their
own culture by gaining knowledge of a foreign language.
e correlation between language, culture, and identity
is proven [14, 15]. But teachers’ ignorance of the learner’s
character and identity is a common and verifiable truth.
Foreign language learners need to be taught and compre-
hend the cultural features and customs of native speakers’
society. In addition, students ought to feel free to com-
municate and exchange information, ideas, and feelings in a
friendly and supportive class atmosphere. Nevertheless,
stepping into the novel experience of foreign language ac-
quiring can come along with cultural and identity confu-
sions for the students and, in turn, cause difficulties for both
the teacher and the students [16, 17].
Cultural intelligence is the competence to communicate
effectively with people from other cultures and communi-
ties. Several attributions include comprehension of different
aspects of a foreign culture, attentiveness, and some be-
havioral and social skills that are attributed to cultural in-
telligence. is set of skills and abilities helps individuals
better understand cultural standards and act appropriately
in cross-cultural circumstances [18, 19].
Cultural intelligence is a factor that has received the least
attention in language curriculum by English teachers. A
language learner carries their identity, culture, and values to
the language classroom, as well. Culture is not separated
from language; therefore, language learners simultaneously
gain knowledge of language and culture [20, 21]. In this
study, the research context includes students who study
Hindawi
Education Research International
Volume 2022, Article ID 4730338, 12 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4730338

English as a foreign language in universities of Iran. Gen-
erally, Iranian students are not sufficiently exposed to the
English language and its culture. us, it seems vital that it
explores how English may influence EFL and ESP learners’
cultural intelligence in Iran. Although previous research [22,
23] has shown the effect of English on cultural intelligence,
more studies are needed to shed further light on cultural
intelligence.
2. Review of Literature
Language, culture, and intelligence are closely linked and
cannot be separated. Culture, intelligence, and identity find
their meanings in a language-based context. It is a language
that social configurations are based on language, and the
sense of identity and intelligence also derives from it [24, 25].
2.1. Cultural Intelligence eory. Early and Ang [26] created
the cultural intelligence (C.Q.) framework to measure in-
ternal and social cross-cultural competencies. ey define
C.Q. as “an individual’s capability to function and manage
effectively in culturally diverse settings” ([27], p. 32). Since
its development in (2003), C.Q. has become a robust the-
oretical framework in cross-cultural proficiency research [5,
27, 28]. Early and Ang [26] patterned C.Q. after a framework
of general intelligence developed by Sternberg [29]. Stern-
berg was among the first to move beyond traditional
measures of intelligence (verbal comprehension, memory,
and reasoning) to a more sociocultural and contextual view.
Sternberg [30] defined intelligence as “mental activity di-
rected toward purposive adaptation to, and the selection and
shaping of, real-world environments relevant to one’s life”
(p. 45). He conceived several loci of intelligence as critical to
adequately account for sociocultural aspects of intelligence.
Similarly, Early and Ang [26] constructed the C.Q. frame-
work on four essential loci. ese loci measure mental ac-
tivity (metacognition, cognition, and motivation). e
fourth one measures social interaction (behavior). Ng et al.
[27] and Mohammadi and Izadpanah [31] claimed that C.Q.
is unique because it seeks to measure people’s perception of
their ability to reason with cross-cultural situations and solve
real-world problems.
2.2. Metacognitive, Cognitive, Motivational, and Behavioral
Knowledge
2.2.1. Metacognitive C.Q. Metacognitive C.Q. is the ro-
bustness and control of mental processes that help indi-
viduals effectively and correctly understand cultural
differences. ose with high metacognitive C.Q. tend to
possess a more consistent awareness of their thinking
processes. is awareness is accompanied by a certain
amount of mental flexibility, which allows individuals to
revise mental models as they encounter novel cultural sit-
uations [9, 32, 33] [34].
2.2.2. Cognitive C.Q. Ang et al. [35], Bandura [36], and
Pauluzzo (2020) conceived cognitive C.Q. to describe
knowledge of cultural norms, conventions, and practices.
Typically gained through experience and formal education,
this knowledge can include perceptions of a particular
culture’s economics, social standards, political systems, and
religious practices.
2.2.3. Motivational C.Q. is construct describes the ability
to focus energy on the complex task of learning about, and
functioning within, culturally diverse situations. It outlined
motivational C.Q. in the context of the expectancy-value
theory of motivation, which states the amount of energy one
will expend: (a) how much a person values cultural un-
derstanding and (b) how much that person believes cultural
understanding is possible. ose with high amounts of
motivational C.Q. have high expectations that cultural
bridges can be successfully crossed, and such an endeavor is
worth it [35].
2.2.4. Behavioral C.Q. Behavioral C.Q. is similar in its ap-
proach to early models of cross-cultural proficiency.
Hammer et al. were the first to develop a behavior-focused
cross-cultural competency model. eir theory of inter-
cultural effectiveness proposed that three factors, above all
others, determined a person’s ability to navigate cross-
cultural contexts. ese factors include (a) an ability to
handle the stress of cross-cultural situations (especially
living/working in a foreign culture), (b) the ability to
communicate effectively, and (c) the ability to establish
relationships with those of other cultures. Unlike Hammer
et al., Ang et al. [35] placed greater emphasis on verbal and
nonverbal communication skills. is approach follows
[37–39], who emphasized the implicit nature of cultural
communication. ose with high levels of behavioral C.Q.
have a diverse collection of situational appropriate verbal
and nonverbal actions that include words, tone of voice,
body language, and facial expressions.
Numerous studies have been conducted on C.Q. in terms
of participants’ study abroad experience, proficiency in
English, gender, etc. (Pauluzzo, 2020; Markum, 2017;
Rachmawaty et al., 2018). One study showed that students’
cultural intelligence improved after short-term stays in
foreign countries. It suggested that the students’ cultural
intelligence revealed significant improvement in the overall
level of cultural intelligence and their metacognitive C.Q.,
cognitive C.Q., motivational C.Q., and behavioral C.Q.
(Rustambekov and Mohan, 2017). is study showed that
students’ C.Q. did not show any statistical difference in the
participants’ ages. Several studies also revealed the signifi-
cance of time spent in foreign countries to improve par-
ticipants’ C.Q. [14, 40].
Another study also suggested that even the short period
of a cultural tour showed a significant relationship between
travel and the participants’ metacognitive C.Q., cognitive
C.Q., and motivational C.Q. However, no significant sta-
tistical difference was found between a short-term cross-
cultural tour and behavioral C.Q [41]. Some studies sug-
gested traveling abroad did not influence the students’
cultural intelligence. On the contrary, participants who had
2Education Research International

no experience traveling to foreign countries showed higher
C.Q. [42]. On the other hand, Robert and Bariana [43]
investigated whether the choice of the country influenced
the learners’ C.Q. At one of the universities in the USA, the
results showed that having the experience of travel to foreign
countries affected the learners’ C.Q. and that the choice of
countries did matter. It was interesting to note that the study
also found that learners who traveled to non-Anglo-Saxon
countries developed a higher level of cultural intelligence.
is research aims to assess the cultural intelligence in
EFL and ESP students on their metacognitive, cognitive,
motivational, and behavioral knowledge.
(1) Is metacognitive knowledge of Iranian EFL and ESP
students different from cultural intelligence?
(2) Is cognitive knowledge of Iranian EFL and ESP
students different from cultural intelligence?
(3) Is motivational knowledge of Iranian EFL and ESP
students different from cultural intelligence?
(4) Is behavioral knowledge of Iranian EFL and ESP
learners different from cultural intelligence?
3. Method
3.1. Design of Study. is descriptive study used a non-
random sampling method among undergraduate and
postgraduate students of the Zanjan Azad University of
English language teaching and ESP language learners of the
Zanjan University of Medical Sciences.
3.2. Participants. Based on a nonrandom sampling method,
the number of statistical societies equals 450 medical stu-
dents and 162 English studentsTable 1.
3.3. Instrument. A cultural intelligence questionnaire [35]
was the main instrument in this study which was consisted
of 20 questions and four parts. ese four areas referred to
four aspects of cultural intelligence, including (1) meta-
cognition, (2) cognition, (3) motivational knowledge, and
(4) behavioral knowledge.
e metacognitive component included decision making
and individual planning for familiarizing with other cultures
and understanding relationships and differences. e cog-
nitive part (or cultural knowledge) refers to the individual’s
cultural and intercultural ability. People who have a high
cultural knowledge have a good experience of the similar-
ities. e motivational element (or cultural motivation) is
the amount of a person’s willingness and desire to learn and
interact in multicultural environments. People with high
cultural motivations are trying to improve their cultural
information and familiarity with different cultures. e
behavioral component includes the proper verbal and
nonverbal tools in dealing with new cultures. People with
high sociocultural status can use the correct forms and
matching of words, the tone of verification, and nonvoice
messages, including movements (hands, face, and eyes).
3.4. Procedure. e first stage of the study was started by
giving the questionnaire to participants. Since giving
questions to 323 participants simultaneously was hard work,
the researchers used social media on the Internet to interact
with participants. e questionnaire was sent to participants
by email or through social media with a deadline for sending
the answer. e researchers were ready to answer any
questions and gave the appropriate examples to confused
participants. According to statistics science and central
limitation theory, when the sample size is near to intolerable
(over 25), the sample size has a normal distribution. After
gathering all the answers to the questionnaire, the scores
were sent to SPSS (version 22) to find out the results and the
degree of difference between the two groups in each area. A
Persian translation of the questionnaire was made available.
Two proficient translators converted the questionnaire into
Persian, and then two other experts translated them back
into English. Subsequently, two experienced and knowl-
edgeable English language experts compared both versions
to the original English questionnaires. In the end, the most
proper Persian adaptation was chosen.
3.5. Data Analysis. e main objectives of this research were
cognitive, metacognitive, motivational knowledge, and be-
havioral dimensions in the cultural intelligence question-
naire. In the inferential analysis section, first, the reliability
of the questionnaire and then, using the Kolmogor-
ov–Smirnov test, the standard variables were examined.
en, a self-contained t-test was conducted to investigate
societies’ similarities and the research hypotheses for con-
firmation or disapproval. Descriptive statistics were pre-
sented about the status of the research variables using tables
and graphs. en, statistical methods and different tests such
as correlation and regression were used to answer the re-
search questions and conclusions. All the static tests were
applied in SPSS (version 22) at a significant level α�0.05.
4. Results
4.1. Explanatory Examination of Research Variables. e
following tables demonstrate principal indicators and the
Table 1: Distribution of participants.
Sample size Society
207 450 Medical students
116 162 English students
323 612 Total
Table 2: Frequency distribution and descriptive indices of medical
student responses.
Mean Median Std.
deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Cognitive 3.69 4.00 0.945 0.34 −0.72
Metacognitive 4.84 5.00 0.751 0.28 −0.69
Motivational 3.49 3.60 1.03 −0.21 −0.34
Behavioral 3.77 4.00 1.05 −0.15 −0.54
Education Research International 3

distribution of answers to the questions connected to each
variable.
According to Table 2, the average observed in the re-
sponses of medical students in cognitive, metacognitive,
motivational, and behavioral was 3.69, 4.84, 3.49, and 3.77,
respectively. Respondents have chosen options 4 and 5 more.
e metacognitive size has the highest standard; then, the
behavioral and motivational variables have a higher mean.
Finally, the behavioral variable has the lowest average.
According to the skewness and kurtosis, these values are
between 2 and −2; therefore, the distribution of variables is
close to normal distribution.
Based on Table 3, the observed mean of cognitive,
metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral subcomponents
in the responses of language students is 4.86, 5.72, 4.90, and
4.65, which shows that respondents have selected options 5
and 6 more than the others. Regarding the mean of sub-
components, it is seen that the metacognitive has the highest
mean. e motivational and cognitive variables and, finally,
the behavioral variable have the highest mean. According to
the skewness and kurtosis, these values are between 2 and –0
2, thus the distribution of variables is close to normal
distribution.
4.2. Inferential Analysis
4.2.1. Checking the Normality of Variables. Considering the
significance levels obtained (Sig) in Table 4 and cognitive,
metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral dimensions, it
is more than 5%. erefore, the null hypothesis means that
the normal distribution of samples is confirmed at a level of
error of 5%, with no considerable dissimilarity in the dis-
tribution of models with the normal one.
4.3. Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis 1. Cultural intelligence is significantly different
between English language students and medical students. To
do this test, the preliminary test and then the subtests related
to the cultural intelligence dimensions are presented.
First, according to the above hypothesis, the test is as
follows:
H0: the average cultural intelligence of the English
language and medical students is the same.
H1: the average cultural intelligence between English
and medical students is different.
To do the above hypothesis, considering the normality of
the data, population’s means were compared by the re-
searchers, using t-test results presented in Table 5.
For variance equation analysis, first, the Levene’s test
was conducted. It is observed that the value of Sig. is equal
to 0.001 and smaller than 0.05; thus, the assumption of
variance equality is excluded. erefore, the null hy-
pothesis or the conjecture of average equality is excluded
with 95% confidence. In other words, the mean of cultural
intelligence variables is significantly different between
English and ESP students. e means are shown in
Table 6.
According to Table 5, it is seen that the mean cultural
intelligence variable in medical students is 3.94, which is
lower than the average of this variable in language students
equal to 5.03, which shows that the cultural intelligence of
students in the field of language is significantly higher than
that of ESP students.
Hypothesis 1. Cultural intelligence has a significant differ-
ence in the cognitive dimension between English and ESP
students.
To do the above hypothesis, considering the normality of
the data, a t-test was conducted to compare societies’ means.
Test results are displayed in Table 7.
First, the Levene’s test was used to analyze the variance
equation for this hypothesis. It is observed that the value of
Sig. is equal to 0.001 and less than 0.05; thus, the assumption
of variance equality of sis cast aside. Considering t-test
results, cultural intelligence is significant at the cognitive
level. e value of Sig. is 0.001 and less than 0.05. erefore,
null hypothesis or any assumption of meaning equality is
also cast aside with 95% confidence. In other words, the
mean of cultural intelligence variable in the cognitive di-
mension is significantly different between English and
medical students.
According to Table 8, the average cultural intelligence
variable in the cognitive dimension in medical students is
3.69, which is less than the mean of this variable in English
Table 3: Frequency distribution and descriptive indicators of English student answers.
Mean Median Std. deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Cognitive 4.86 4.75 1.60 1.09 0.63
Metacognitive 5.72 5.67 1.69 1.09 0.49
Motivational 4.90 4.80 0.20 0.59 0.69
Behavioral 4.65 4.60 1.91 1.17 0.56
Table 4: Kolmogorov–Smirnov output to test variable normality.
Cognitive Metacognitive Motivational Behavioral
N 323 323 323 323
Kolmogorov–Smirnov Z 1.36 1.32 1.23 1.38
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.06
4Education Research International

students who is 4.86, which shows that the cultural in-
telligence of English students in the field of cognitive
science is significantly higher than that of medical students.
Considering the normality of the data, a t-test was used to
compare the mean of the societies. Results are presented in
Table 9.
Analyzing variance equation was carried out first using
the Levene’s test. It is observed that the value of Sig. is equal
to 0.001 and smaller than 0.05; thus, assuming variance
equality cannot come into account. Considering t-test re-
sults, cultural intelligence is deemed to be metacognitive.
e value of Sig. is 0.001 and smaller than 0.05, therefore
Table 5: Independent t-test for comparing two communities in the cultural intelligence variable.
Cultural identity
Levene’s test
for equality
of variances
T-test for equality of means
FSig. TDfpvalue Mean difference Std. error difference
95% confidence
interval of the
difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances assumed 43.27 .000 13.19 321 0.001 −1.09 0.08 -1.25 -0.93
Equal variances not assumed 15.60 318.4 0.001 −1.09 0.07 -1.22 -0.95
Table 6: Mean cultural intelligence variable in two disciplines of English and medical sciences.
Group NMean Std. deviation Std. error mean
Cultural identity Medical students 207 3.94 0.83 0.06
English students 116 5.03 0.42 0.04
Table 7: Comparing two communities in cultural intelligence variable in cognitive dimension utilizing t-test.
Levene’s
test for
equality of
variances
T-test for equality of means
FSig. TDfSig. (2-tailed) Mean difference Std. error difference
95%
confidence
interval of the
difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances assumed 23.67 .000 11.94 32 .000 −1.17 0.10 −1.36 −.98
Equal variances not assumed 13.33 311.83 .000 −1.17 .09 −1.34 −.10
Table 8: e mean of cultural intelligence in cognitive dimension in two disciplines of English language and medical sciences.
Group NMean Std. deviation Std. error mean
Cultural intelligence in the cognitive dimension Medical students 207 3.69 0.95 0.07
English students 116 4.86 0.63 0.06
Table 9: Comparing two societies in the cultural intelligence variable in the metacognitive dimension utilizing t-test.
Levene’s
test for
equality of
variances
T-test for equality of means
FSig. T DfSig. (2-tailed) Mean difference Std. error difference
95%
confidence
interval of the
difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances assumed 23.01 .001 11.38 321 .001 −.88 0.08 −1.04 −0.73
Equal variances not assumed 12.76 313.6 .001 −.88 0.07 −1.02 −0.75
Education Research International 5

rejecting the null hypothesis or assuming average equality
with 95% confidence. e mean cultural intelligence variable
in the metacognitive dimension is significantly different
between English and medical students.
According to Table 10, the average cultural intelligence
variable in the metacognitive dimension in medical students
is 4.84, which is lower than the mean of this variable in
language students, which is 5.72, which shows that the
cultural intelligence of English students in the metacognitive
dimension is significantly higher than that of medical
students.
Hypothesis 3. Cultural intelligence has a significant differ-
ence in the motivation dimension between English and
medical students.
To do the above hypothesis, considering the normality of
the data, a t-test was used to compare the mean of societies.
Results are presented in Table 11.
Analyzing variance equation was accomplished first
using the Levene’s test (Table 11). It can be observed that the
value of Sig. is equal to 0.001 and smaller than 0.05. Con-
sidering the results of the t-test, cultural intelligence is
considered to be motivating at times. e mean of cultural
intelligence variable in the motivational dimension between
English and medical students is different.
Based on Table 12, it is seen that the average cultural
intelligence variable in the motivational dimension in
medical students is 3.49, which is less than the average of this
variable in the students of English, which is equal to 4.90,
which indicates that English language students’ cultural
intelligence in the dimension of motivation is significantly
higher than that of medical students.
To do the above hypothesis, considering the normality of
the data, a t-test was used to compare the mean of two societies.
After using the Levene’s test for the analysis of the
variance equation (Table 13), it could have been observed
that the value of Sig. is equal to 0.001 and less than 0.05.
erefore, the assumption of the equality of variances is
rejected. Considering the results of the t-test, cultural in-
telligence is known to be motivating at times. e value of
Sig. is 0.001 and less than 0.05. erefore, the null hypothesis
or the assumption of the equality of means is also rejected
with 95% confidence. In other words, the mean of cultural
intelligence variable in the motivational dimension between
English students and medical students is significantly
different.
In Table 14, it is seen that the mean cultural intelligence
variable in the motivational dimension in medical students is
equal to 3.77, which is lower than the mean of this variable in
the English students, which is equal to 4.65, which indicates
that the cultural intelligence of the English students in the
dimension of motivation is significantly higher than that of
medical students.
Hypothesis 2. e dimensions of cultural intelligence
(cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral) in
English students are significantly different.
Researchers test the following to make the above hy-
pothesis: ANOVA test is used to perform the above hy-
pothesis due to normal variables.
According to Table 15, it is seen that the value of Sig. is
0.001, which is less than 0.05, which shows that the average
dimensions of cultural intelligence are significantly different.
Tukey test was used to determine this difference.
Table 10: Mean of cultural intelligence variable in metacognitive dimension in two branches of English language and medical sciences.
Group NMean Std. deviation Std. error mean
Cultural intelligence in metacognitive dimension Medical students 207 4.84 0.75 0.05
English students 116 5.72 0.49 0.05
Table 11: Comparison of two communities in cultural intelligence variable in the motivation dimension, using t-test.
Levene’s
test for
equality of
variances
T-test for equality of means
FSig. T DfSig. (2-tailed) Mean difference Std. error difference
95%
confidence
interval of the
difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances assumed 17.87 .001 13.16 321 .001 −1.41 .11 −1.62 −1.20
Equal variances not assumed 14.64 310.5 .000 −1.41 .10 −1.60 −1.22
Table 12: e mean of cultural intelligence variable in motivational dimension in two disciplines of English language and medical sciences.
Group NMean Std. deviation Std. error mean
Cultural intelligence in the motivational dimension Medical students 207 3.49 1.03 .07
English students 116 4.90 0.69 .06
6Education Research International

Given Tukey test outputs in Table 16, Sig. values between
some variables are less than 0.05, indicating that the vari-
ables have significant differences. is difference was be-
tween the mean metacognitive and cognitive subcategories
with a mean of -0.86. Cognitive and behavioral differences,
with an average of 0.21, and between the metacognitive and
motivational submetrics with a difference of 0.82 and
metacognitive and behavioral subscripts with a difference of
1.07 and an average motivational and behavioral subcom-
ponent with a mean difference of 0.224 are significant.
ANOVA test is used to perform the above hypothesis due to
standard variables.
According to Table 17, it is seen that the value of Sig. is
0.001, which is less than 0.05, which shows that the average
dimensions of cultural intelligence in the students of medical
sciences are significantly different. Tukey test is used to
determine this difference.
Tukey test outputs in Table 18 show that values of Sig.
among some variables are less than 0.05, indicating that the
variables have significant differences, namely, the difference
between the mean metacognitive and cognitive subcom-
ponents with a mean difference of -1.14, metacognitive and
motivational with a mean difference of 1.34, and meta-
cognitive and behavioral with a mean difference of 1.07.
Also, there is a noticeable difference between mean and
subjective motivational and behavioral components with a
mean of 0.28. According to the averages, it is seen that the
highest mean for the metacognitive subelement is 4.83 and
the lowest for the motivational variable with an average of
3.49.
4.4. Discussion of Findings. Regarding the first research
question, the results of the cultural intelligence sample t-test
on the measures of metacognitive knowledge revealed that
the EFL learners significantly had more understanding of
metacognitive (with the mean of 5.719), in comparison with
the ESP learners (with the mean of 4.835) (Tables 2 and 3).
erefore, it can be declared that participating in English
classes can enhance metacognitive knowledge. While the
EFL learners were answering the questionnaire, it was
sensible that they had some metacognitive knowledge be-
cause they asked some questions for more information. ey
expressed some examples of their experience in their English
classes. In contrast, in the ESP learners’ group, the partic-
ipants had so many problems perceiving the questions, and
most of them were unfamiliar with the concept. us, in the
process of answering, they had some difficulties acquired
when the researchers illustrated those questions. It was
undeniable that they were alienated from the target lan-
guage’s culture because the school classes did not focus so
much on the culture of the language.
According to Byram et al. [44], knowledge can be
classified into two broad categories: (1) knowledge of social
groups and culture of the target language’s communities and
(2) knowledge of concepts in interpersonal and social in-
teractions, which comes to be known as culture-specific and
culture-general knowledge. Culture-specific understanding
about the individual’s own country can also be referred to as
cultural self-awareness and is often rephrased as under-
standing of oneself and one’s own culture. However, there is
no focus on this area in the Iranian school’s context because
of differences in culture and some religious and political
reasons.
ese findings match the results of some studies in which
significant differences were found in comparison to the
intercultural competence in EFL and ESP learners (such as
[1, 45] Koh et al., 2009; [46] Liddicoat et al.; [6, 11, 47–49]).
For example, the study of Bandura’s [36] developmental
model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS) indicates that
learners can advance their cultural intelligence on the
Table 13: Comparing two communities in the cultural intelligence variable in the motivational dimension, using t-test.
Levene’s
test for
equality of
variances
T-test for equality of means
F Sig. T Df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean difference Std. error difference
95%
confidence
interval of the
difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances assumed 46.16 .001 8.42 321 .001 −0.89 .11 −1.09 −0.68
Equal variances not assumed 9.89 320.0 .001 −0.89 .09 −1.06 −0.71
Table 14: e mean cultural intelligence variable in the motiva-
tional dimension.
Group NMean Std. deviation Std. error mean
Medical students 207 3.77 1.05 0.07
English students 116 4.65 0.58 0.05
Table 15: ANOVA’S test for comparison of subjects of cultural
intelligence in language students.
Sum of squares Df Mean
square FSig.
Between
groups 76.98 3 25.66 72.13 0.001
Within groups 163.65 460 0.356
Total 240.63 463
Education Research International 7

continuum from ethnocentric stages to ethnorelative phases.
Findings of the present study support Bennett’s model that
Vietnamese EFL learners developed their cultural intelli-
gence linearly across different topics. However, results did
not show linear development across time. Shaules [48] ar-
gues that learners can be found simultaneously in mixed
states of resistance, acceptance, and adaptation. Positive
results of the intercultural intervention indicated a lack of
ethnocentric attitudes evident in the I.C. class. is suggests
that focusing on developing learners’ intercultural awareness
and knowledge at the beginning of language learning is
crucial. It can primarily help them minimize ethnocentric
attitudes and develop ethnorelative awareness and attitudes
towards cultures.
4.5. Cognitive Knowledge. Regarding the second research
question, the results showed that EFL significantly had more
cognitive knowledge (with the mean of 4.862) in comparison
with the ESP learners (with the mean of 3.692) (Tables 2 and
3).
erefore, it can be said that participating in English
classes can enhance cognitive knowledge. While EFL par-
ticipants were answering the questionnaire, it was sensible
that they had a positive attitude towards cultural intelligence.
On the other hand, in the ESP learners’ group, the partic-
ipants had so many problems perceiving the question, and
most of them were unfamiliar with the concept. us, in the
process of answering, they had some difficulties acquired
when the researcher illustrated those questions. It was un-
deniable that they were unfamiliar with the target language’s
culture because school classes did not focus sufficiently on
the culture. In addition, ESP learners were passive and not
eager to learn about the target language’s culture because
they asked some questions for more information and
examples.
Bandura’s developmental model of intercultural sensi-
tivity (DMIS) study indicates that learners should develop
their cultural intelligence from ethnocentric stages to eth-
norelative phases. Findings of the current study support
Bandura’s [36] model that Vietnamese EFL learners de-
veloped their cultural intelligence linear across different
topics. However, linear development across time was not
concluded.
Although there are some differences in some aspects of
the study, for instance, in Genc and Bada’s [50] research,
students did not get familiar with the cultural factors. Still,
EFL learners were eager to learn about cultural intelligence
in this study. us, it can be concluded that having keen
cultural intelligence depends on too many factors, including
individual characteristics and the needs of learners. In ad-
dition, in another survey (Weedon [51] studied on Chinese
students living in France for a two weeks’ workshop; they
tend to learn about the culture of language because of their
needs to interact appropriately in the workshop context.
In the second research question, it was claimed that the
result of most studies is in line with the present research in
which the importance of focusing on cultural factors en-
hances intercultural competence in terms of intercultural
attitudes. is appears to support Ang [35] and Van Dyne
[52], who emphasized the importance of cross-cultural in-
teraction in developing cultural intelligence.
4.6. Motivational Knowledge. Regarding the third research
question, the results showed that Iranian EFL significantly
had more skill of motivational knowledge (with the mean of
4.896) in comparison with the ESP students (with the mean
of 3.488) (Tables 2 and 3). erefore, it can be declared that
participating in English classes can enhance the skill of
cultural intelligence. While the EFL learners answered the
questionnaire, they had more cultural intelligence skills
Table 16: Post hoc Tukey test.
Tukey test for the mean difference of subscales (I)
variable (J) variable Mean difference
(I-J)
Std.
error Sig. 95% confidence interval
Lower bound Upper bound
Cognitive
Metacognitive −.86∗0.08 0.001 −1.06 −0.66
Motivational −0.03 0.08 0.971 −0.24 0.17
Behavioral 0.21∗0.08 0.040 0.01 0.41
Metacognitive
Cognitive .86∗0.08 0.001 0.66 1.06
Motivational .82∗0.08 .001 0.62 1.03
Behavioral 1.07∗0.08 .001 0.86 1.27
Motivational
Cognitive 0.03 0.08 .971 −0.17 0.24
Metacognitive −0.82∗0.08 .001 −1.02 −0.62
Behavioral 0.24∗0.08 .011 0.04 0.45
Behavioral
Cognitive −0.21∗0.08 .040 −0.41 −0.01
Metacognitive −1.07∗0.08 .001 −1.27 −0.86
Motivational −.24∗0.08 .011 −0.45 −0.04
∗
e mean difference is considerable at the 0.05 level.
Table 17: ANOVA test for comparisons of cultural intelligence
elements in language students.
Sum of
squares Df Mean
square F Sig.
Between
groups 227.17 3 75.72 83.497 0.001
Within groups 747.28 824 0.91
Total 974.45 827
8Education Research International

because they answered the questions quickly. Still, they also
expressed some examples of their interaction with other
cultures. For instance, they explained that they got familiar
with some strategies to interact appropriately in a different
situation.
In contrast, on the other hand, in the ESP learners group,
the participants had so many problems in perceiving the
question, and most of them were unfamiliar with the
concept. erefore, they had some difficulties in the process
of answering, which were acquired when the researcher
illustrated those questions. It was undeniable that they were
unfamiliar with the target language’s culture because school
classes did not focus adequately on culture but merely on the
tongue. In addition, ESP learners were friendly and were not
eager to learn about intercultural strategies in the target
language.
ese results also match the findings of some studies in
which significant differences were found in comparison to
the intercultural competence in EFL and ESP learners, such
as [53]; Khodadady et al. [54]; Nejad et al. [55]; Ritlyova [11];
Presbitero [14]; Shahsavadi et al. [56]; and Van et al. [57]. It
is also vital to mention learners’ underdeveloped con-
sciousness in applying various sources to understand dif-
ferent relationships and analyses differing sociocultural
interpretations as a defect that needs attention.
Although there are some differences in some aspects of
the study in some studies, for instance, in Hopkyns’ [58]
research, students did not have so much tendency to get
familiar with the cultural factors. Still, EFL learners were
eager to learn about cultural intelligence in these studies.
So, it can be concluded that being eager to learn moti-
vational knowledge depends on too many factors, in-
cluding individual characteristics and the needs of
learners.
In addition, in another survey, Zuengler and Miller [59]
studied on Chinese students living in France for a two weeks’
workshop; they have too much tendency to learn about the
culture languages because of their needs to interact ap-
propriately in the workshop context. To sum up, the third
research question claimed that the result of most studies is in
line with the present research in which the importance of
focusing on cultural factors enhances cultural intelligence in
terms of motivational knowledge.
4.7. Behavioral Knowledge. Regarding the fourth research
question, the results showed that EFL significantly had more
behavioral knowledge (with the mean of 4.653) in com-
parison with the ESP learners (with the mean of 3.677)
(Tables 2 and 3). erefore, it can be declared that par-
ticipating in English classes can enhance behavioral
knowledge. While EFL participants were answering the
questionnaire, it was sensible that they were more aware of
cultural intelligence because they asked some questions for
more information. ey expressed some examples of their
experience in their English classes. For instance, they
explained that they got familiar with cultural differences and
some cultural values in movies or songs that they have
listened to.
In contrast, on the other hand, in the ESP learners’
group, the participants had so many problems in perceiving
the question, and most of them were unfamiliar with the
concept. us, in the process of answering, they had some
difficulties acquired when the researcher illustrated those
questions. ey were out of contact with the target lan-
guage’s culture because the school classes did not focus so
much on the culture of the language. In addition, ESP
learners were passive and not eager to learn about the target
language’s culture.
e study’s results equal the findings of some researches
in which significant differences were found in comparison to
the cultural intelligence in EFL and ESP learners (such as
Karatas
¸and Arpaci [5] and Liddicoat et al. [46]. For ex-
ample, it can be argued that learners can be found in mixed
states of resistance, acceptance, and adaptation
simultaneously.
Although in some studies, there are some differences in
some aspects of the study, students did not tend to get fa-
miliar with the cultural factors. Still, EFL learners were eager
to learn about cultural intelligence in this study. us, it can
Table 18: Tukey test for the mean difference of subscales.
(I) variable (J) variable Mean difference (I-J) Std. error Sig. 95% confidence interval
Lower bound Upper bound
Cognitive
Metacognitive −1.14∗0.09 0.001 −1.38 −0.90
Motivational 0.20 0.09 0.13 −0.04 0.44
Behavioral −0.07 0.09 0.86 −0.32 0.18
Metacognitive
Cognitive 1.14∗0.09 0.001 0.90 1.38
Motivational 1.34∗0.09 0.001 1.11 1.59
Behavioral 1.07∗0.09 0.001 0.83 1.31
Motivational
Cognitive −0.20 0.09 0.132 −0.44 0.04
Metacognitive −1.34∗0.09 0.001 −1.59 −1.11
Behavioral −.28∗0.09 0.017 −0.52 −0.04
Behavioral
Cognitive .07 0.09 0.858 −0.17 0.32
Metacognitive −1.07∗0.09 0.001 −1.31 −0.83
Motivational .28∗0.09 0.017 0.04 0.52
∗
e mean difference is significant at 0.05 level.
Education Research International 9

be concluded that having eagerness for cultural intelligence
depends on too many factors, including individual char-
acteristics and the needs of learners. Another survey [60]
studied Chinese students living in France for a two-week
workshop; they have too much tendency to learn about the
culture of language because of their need to interact ap-
propriately in the workshop context. To sum up, the last
research question was claimed that the result of most studies
is in line with the present research in which the importance
of focusing on cultural factors enhances cultural intelligence
in terms of behavioral knowledge.
5. Conclusion
is study was set out to determine the differences in cul-
tural factors in English learning between EFL and ESP
learners in Iran regarding four aspects of metacognitive,
cognitive, motivational, and behavioral knowledge. Findings
show that schoolteachers spent less time teaching in insti-
tutions on cultural intelligence than their peers. In high
school, concentration was on language teaching because it
was important for students to pass examinations. Still, in the
institution, learning English mainly was communication and
the ability to interact appropriately in the target language.
Results show that it is crucial to put the main focus of the
teaching process on intercultural competence and cultural
intelligence. A second notable finding indicated that when
researchers address cultural intelligence in class, EFL
learners tend to focus on rather superficial aspects of
intercultural communication, such as isolated facts about an
English-speaking country. Still, ESP learners did not manage
to get familiar with cultural intelligence. While EFL par-
ticipants were answering the questionnaire, it was sensible
that they had a positive attitude towards cultural intelligence
because they asked some questions for more information
and expressed some examples about their experience in
English interactions.
In contrast, ESP learners had many problems perceiving
the questions, and most were unfamiliar with the concept.
erefore, in the process of answering, they had some
difficulties acquired when the researcher illustrated those
questions. It was undeniable that they were unfamiliar with
the target language’s culture because school classes had not
paid enough attention to culture. In addition, ESP learners
were not keen on learning about the target language’s
culture.
5.1. Limitations and Future Work. e current research had
several limitations. First, the study was restricted to uni-
versities in Zanjan city because of time and financial con-
straints. is city is a small city which has not so much
tourists or native English speakers. ese conditions create a
situation where citizens are not exposed to native English
speakers. e same conditions do not exist in bigger cities of
Iran. Second, the study would be enhanced with several
students involved in the survey, the interviews, and the
classroom observations. However, time constraints and fi-
nancial constraints limited the number of participants in the
study. A more significant number of participants would have
increased the generalizability of the study’s findings. An-
other point is that this study is a quantitative study that does
not consider any interview or treatment; future studies can
include these factors, too. University students have been
selected because their proficiency in English is higher, so
they have a better understanding of cultural intelligence.
Finally, the study identified significant differences
between English and medical students regarding their
focus on cultural intelligence and their strategies to de-
velop abilities. It emerged that English was operated
differently from medical students. ey had better fa-
cilities, had greater freedom in running their classrooms,
had access to more training opportunities, and had
students with higher levels of English skills. is infor-
mation could inform government programs designed to
improve the teaching of cultural intelligence in high
schools in Iran and inform university teacher preparation
programs.
Abbreviations
C.Q.: Cultural intelligence
TEFL: Teaching English as a Foreign Language
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
ESL: English as a Second Language.
Data Availability
e data will be available upon request from the corre-
sponding author (Siros Izadpanah, email ID: cyrosizadpa-
nah@yahoo.com).
Disclosure
e abstract of this article was presented in the “2nd In-
ternational Baku Conference on Scientific Research in 2021.”
Conflicts of Interest
e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] X. Gao and Z. Hua, “Experiencing Chinese education:
learning of language and culture by international students in
Chinese universities,” Language Culture and Curriculum,
vol. 1, pp. 1–7, 2021.
[2] N. Ram´
ırez-Lizcano and M. A. Cabrera-Tovar, “EFL learners’
perceptions about language learning and culture when using
telecollaboration,” Profile - Issues in Teachers’ Professional
Development, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 95–113, 2020.
[3] R. Ahmed and A. AL-Kadi̇, “Online and face-to-face peer
review in academic writing: Frequency and preferences,”
Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 7, no. 1,
pp. 169–201, 2021.
[4] ¨
O. Ardıç and H. Çiftçi, “ICT competence and needs of Turkish
EFL instructors: the role of gender, institution and experi-
ence,” Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, vol. 5, no. 1,
pp. 153–173, 2019.
10 Education Research International

[5] K. Karatas¸ and I. Arpaci, “e mediating role of tolerance in
the relationship between cultural intelligence and xenopho-
bia,” Asia Pacific Education Review, vol. 2, pp. 1–9, 2021.
[6] K. Naidu, “Attending to ’culture ’in intercultural language
learning: a study of Indonesian language teachers in Australia.
Discourse,” Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,
vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 653–665, 2020.
[7] T. Scovel, “e role of culture in second language pedagogy,”
System, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 205–219, 1994.
[8] K. Makhmudov, “Ways of forming intercultural communi-
cation in foreign language teaching,” Science and Education,
vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 10–29, 2020.
[9] J. Duan, “Study on the interaction between college students’
cultural literacy and “bottom-line thinking,” in Proceedings of
the 4th International Conference on Culture, Education and
Economic Development of Modern Society (ICCESE 2020),
pp. 578–581, Atlantis Press, Moscow, Russia, March 2020.
[10] L. Grossberg, “Identity and cultural studies: is that all there is,”
Questions of cultural intelligence, vol. 7, pp. 87–107, 1996.
[11] A. Ritlyov´a, “Cultural studies in language teaching language,
literature and culture in a changing transatlantic world,”
International Conference Proceedings, pp. 93–97, 2009.
[12] M. Almutairi, “Kuwaiti parents’ perceptions towards intro-
ducing a foreign culture into their children’s EFL textbooks in
public elementary schools,” Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 45–53, 2020.
[13] J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt, Longman Dictionary of
Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, Routledge, Lon-
don, UK, 2013.
[14] A. Presbitero, “Communication accommodation within
global virtual team: the influence of cultural intelligence and
the impact on interpersonal process effectiveness,” Journal of
International Management, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 100–119, 2021.
[15] S. Shahidi, “Comparing the effectiveness of conventional and
Kano model questionnaire for gathering requirement of
online bus reservation system,” International Journal of In-
novative Research and Scientific Studies, vol. 3, no. 1,
pp. 27–32, 2020.
[16] K. Fartash, S. M. M. Davoudi, T. A. Baklashova et al., “e
impact of technology acquisition & exploitation on organi-
zational innovation and organizational performance in
knowledge-intensive organizations,” Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol.14, no. 4,
pp. 1497–1507, 2018.
[17] L. T. Ingersoll, “Examining the effects of an on-campus
cultural training course combined with faculty-led, short-
term study abroad experiences on undergraduate students’
cultural intelligence,” vol. 2, pp. 3–15, Purdue University
Graduate School, West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2021, Doctoral
dissertation.
[18] P. T. Esteves, J. Arede, B. Travassos, and M. Dicks, “Gaze and
shoot: examining the effects of player height and attacker-
defender interpersonal distances on gaze behavior and
shooting accuracy of elite basketball players,” Revista de
Psicologia del Deporte, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1–8, 2021.
[19] J. Kim, “e influence of empathy and communicative
competence on cultural competence in nursing students,” e
Journal of the Korea Contents Association, vol. 20, no. 5,
pp. 367–374, 2020.
[20] L. L. Kong, Z. Q. Ma, S. H. Ji, and J. Li, “e mediating effect of
empathy on the relationship between cultural intelligence and
intercultural adaptation in intercultural service encounters,”
e Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, vol. 7,
no. 2, pp. 169–180, 2020.
[21] Z. Qinghua, “Evaluation and prediction of sports health
literacy of college students based on artificial neural net-
work,” Revista de Psicologia del Deporte, vol. 30, no. 3,
pp. 9–18, 2021.
[22] F. A. Ibrahim and J. R. Heuer, “Cultural identity: components
and assessment,” in Cultural and Social Justice Counseling,
pp. 15–49, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2016.
[23] N. R. Mos¸teanu, “Teaching and learning techniques for the
online environment. how to maintain students’ attention and
achieve learning outcomes in a virtual environment using new
technology,” International Journal of Innovative Research and
Scientific Studies, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 278–290, 2021.
[24] Q. Li and R. Zeng, “Implementation of ideological and po-
litical education in China’s foreign language teaching,” in
Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Ed-
ucation, Economics and Management Research (ICEEMR
2019), pp. 549–552, Atlantis Press, Singapore, November
2020.
[25] M. Mohammadi and N. Danesh Pouya, “e relationship
between EFL learners’ mental toughness and critical think-
ing,” Journal of Social science and Humanities Research, vol. 9,
no. 2, pp. 25–36, 2021.
[26] P. C. Earley and S. Ang, Cultural Intelligence: Individual
Interactions across Cultures, Stanford University Press, Cal-
ifornia, CA, USA, 2003.
[27] K.-Y. Ng, L. Van Dyne, S. Ang, and A. Ryan, “Cultural in-
telligence: a review, Pauluzzo, R. (2020). Learning tools to
develop cultural intelligence for SMFEs: the role of social-
cognitive processes,” Sinergie Italian Journal of Management,
vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 133–150, 2012.
[28] D. Matsumoto, J. LeRoux, C. Ratzlaff et al., “Development and
validation of a measure of intercultural adjustment potential
in Japanese sojourners: the Intercultural Adjustment Potential
Scale (ICAPS),” International Journal of Intercultural Rela-
tions, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 483–510, 2001.
[29] R. J. Sternberg, “A framework for understanding conceptions
of intelligence. What is intelligence,” Journal of Intelligence,
vol. 49, pp. 3–15, 1986.
[30] R. J. Sternberg, Beyond I.Q.: A Triarchic eory of Human
Intelligence, CUP Archive, Cambridge, UK, 1985.
[31] H. Mohammadi, S. Izadpanah, and S. Izadpanah, “A study of
the relationship between Iranian learners’ sociocultural
identity and English as a foreign language (EFL) learning
proficiency,” International Journal of Instruction, vol. 12,
no. 1, pp. 53–68, 2019.
[32] S. Bal-Tas¸tan, S. M. M. Davoudi, A. R. Masalimova et al., “e
impacts of teachers’ efficacy and motivation on student’s
academic achievement in science education among secondary
and high school students,” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 2353–
2366, 2018.
[33] K. Z. Khan, X. Wang, S. Malik, and S. A. Ganiyu, “Measuring
the effects of emotional intelligence, cultural intelligence and
cultural adjustment on the academic performance of inter-
national students,” Open Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 8,
no. 9, pp. 16–38, 2020.
[34] B. N. Peirce, “Social identity, investment, and language
learning,” Tesol Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 9–31, 1995.
[35] S. Ang, L. Van Dyne, C. Koh et al., “Cultural intelligence: its
measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision
making, cultural adaptation and task performance,” Man-
agement and Organization Review, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 335–371,
2007.
Education Research International 11

[36] A. Bandura, “Social cognitive theory in cultural context,”
Applied Psychology, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 269–290, 2002.
[37] M. A. Melhe, B. M. Salah, and W. S. Hayajneh, “Impact of
training on positive thinking for improving psychological
hardiness and reducing academic stresses among academi-
cally-late students,” Educational Sciences: eory and Practice,
vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 132–146, 2021.
[38] ´
A. Szab´o and C. Ward, “e relationship between intercul-
tural abilities and cultural identity styles: a longitudinal cross-
lagged analysis,” International Journal of Psychology, vol. 55,
no. 3, pp. 465–471, 2020.
[39] O. Vorobel and D. Kim, Language Teaching at a Distance: An
Overview of, 2012.
[40] J. E. Williams and D. L. Best, “Pancultural gender stereotypes
revisited: the five-factor model,” Sex Roles, vol. 40, no. 7,
pp. 513–525, 2010.
[41] L.-Y. Lee and B. M. Sukoco, “e effects of cultural intelli-
gence on expatriate performance: the moderating effects of
international experience,” International Journal of Human
Resource Management, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 963–981, 2010.
[42] E. Babaii, K. Molana, and M. Nazari, “Contributions of as-
sessment-related critical incidents to language teacher identity
development,” Innovation in Language Learning and Teach-
ing, vol. 9, pp. 1–16, 2020.
[43] P. Robert and H. Bariana, “My competence, your competence,
and the language we use: the moderating effect of interlocutor
language constraint in bilingual accommodation,” Interna-
tional Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, vol. 21,
no. 1, pp. 70–77, 2016.
[44] M. Byram, B. Gribkova, and H. Starkey, Developing the
Intercultural Dimension in Language Teaching: A Practical
Introduction for Teachers, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, UK,
2002.
[45] H. Horibe, “Perspectives: the place of culture in teaching
English as an international language (EIL),” JALT Journal,
vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 241–254, 2008.
[46] A. J. Liddicoat, “Static and dynamic views of culture and
intercultural language acquisition,” Babel, vol. 36, no. 3,
pp. 4–11, 2002.
[47] A. Nejabat, “e impact of cultural factors in learning and
Education on Iranian EFL learners,” Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 358–363, 2016.
[48] J. Shaules, “e debate about cultural difference: deep culture,
cultural identity, and cultures influence on behavior,” Journal
of Intercultural Communication, vol. 10, pp. 115–132, 2007.
[49] M. Vajak, S. Izadpanah, and J. Naserian, “e assessment of
intercultural competence in Iranian EFL and non-EFL
leaners: knowledge, skill, awareness, and attitude,” Cogent
Education, vol. 8, no. 1, Article ID 1936885, 2021.
[50] B. Genc and E. Bada, “Culture in language learning and
teaching,” e Reading Matrix, vol. 5, pp. 73–84, 2005.
[51] C. Weedon, Identity and Culture: Narratives of Difference and
Belonging: Narratives of Difference and Belonging, McGraw-
Hill Education (U.K.), London, UK, 2004.
[52] Van Dyne, “Development and validation of the CQS: the
cultural intelligence scale,” in Handbook of Cultural Intelli-
gence, pp. 34–56, Routledge, London, UK, 2015a.
[53] N. Davarpanah, S. Izadpanah, and P. Fasih, “e relationship
between critical thinking, frequency, informal fallacy and
evidence in argumentative writing,” Jordan Journal of Modern
Languages and Literatures, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 303–319, 2021.
[54] E. Khodadady and S. Ghahari, “Validation of the Persian
cultural intelligence scale and exploring its relationship with
gender, education, traveling abroad and place of living,”
Global Journal of Human-Social Science, vol. 11, pp. 64–75,
2011.
[55] M. Esmaeil Nejad, S. Izadpanah, E. Namaziandost, and
B. Rahbar, “e mediating role of critical thinking abilities in
the relationship between English as a foreign language
learners’ writing performance and their language learning
strategies,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 13, p. 746445, 2022.
[56] A. Shahsavadi, E. Khodadady, and B. H. Yazdi, “Cultural
intelligence of English language learners within a mono-
cultural context,” International Journal of Psychology and
Behavioral Sciences, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 165–172, 2010.
[57] L. Van Dyne, S. Ang, and T. Nielsen, “Cultural intelligence,”
in International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies, S. Clegg
and J. Bailey, Eds., Sage Publications, ousand Oaks, CA,
USA, 2007.
[58] S. Hopkyns, “e effect of global English on culture and
identity in the UAE: a double-edged sword,” Learning and
Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, vol. 11, no. 2,
pp. 20–35, 2014.
[59] J. Zuengler and E. R. Miller, “Cognitive and sociocultural
perspectives: two parallel SLA worlds?” Tesol Quarterly,
vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 35–58, 2006.
[60] Y. Zhao, N. Wang, Y. Li, R. Zhou, and S. Li, “Do cultural
differences affect users’e-learning adoption? A meta-analysis,”
British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 13, pp. 280–
309, 2020.
12 Education Research International