Promoting Intercultural Communication Competencies in Higher Education Grisel María García-Pérez University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, Canada Constanza Rojas-Primus Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Canada A volume in the Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book Series Published in the United States of America by IGI Global Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail: cust@igi-global.com Web site: http://www.igi-global.com Copyright © 2017 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Garcia-Perez, Grisel Maria, editor. Title: Promoting intercultural communication competencies in higher education / Grisel Maria Garcia-Perez and Costanza Rojas-Primus, editors. Description: Hershey, PA : Information Science Reference, [2017] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016043917| ISBN 9781522517320 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781522517344 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: College teaching--Social aspects. | Culturally relevant pedagogy--Study and teaching (Higher) | Communication in education. Classification: LCC LB2331 .P764 2017 | DDC 378.1/25--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn. loc.gov/2016043917 This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development (AHEPD) (ISSN: 2327-6983; eISSN: 2327-6991) British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher. 54 Chapter 3 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning: A Mixed Methods Study Kyra Dawne Garson Thompson Rivers University, Canada ABSTRACT This chapter presents the findings of a mixed-method study that sought to measure upper level students’ intercultural development and their perceptions of intercultural learning in academic settings. Quantitative data was provided by participants (n=178) completing the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) and was analyzed to determine which demographic variables influenced IDI scores. Focus groups provided qualitative data to understand students’ experiences learning in multicultural, academic environments. The results show significant overestimation of intercultural competence in the sample, which taken together with the student voice, provide a snapshot of intercultural learning and development across the disciplines. The findings clearly indicate a need for intentional pedagogy and curricular revision in order to prepare graduates as professionals and citizens in increasingly multicultural and globalized contexts. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1732-0.ch003 Copyright ©2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Internationalization and Intercultural Learning INTRODUCTION Educational scholarship increasingly calls for the development of interculturally competent graduates (Brustien, 2007; Deardorff, 2006; Jones & Killick, 2013; Lee, Poch, Shaw, & Williams, 2012; Seifert, Goodman, King & Baxter Magolda, 2010). A growing number of Canadian institutions include internationalization as a strategic priority and 84% claim that graduating internationally knowledgeable and interculturally competent students as a primary goal (Universities Canada, 2014); yet, there does not appear to be standard assessment or evidence of such outcomes. Within this milieu, we cannot be certain that students are gaining critical competencies related to intercultural learning. Moreover, given the mixed approaches and understandings of what constitutes intercultural learning, outcomes are likely ambiguous, irregular, and potentially inequitable. For more than a decade many institutional approaches to internationalization have been guided by Knight’s (2004) definition of internationalization. At the same time, scholars of internationalization have raised warnings that a focus on the outputs and activities of internationalization has possibly overshadowed goals of student learning (Brandeburg & deWit, 2010; Knight, 2011). These concerns led European scholars to conduct a Delphi panel with internationalization experts around the globe resulting in an enhanced definition which focuses on being inclusive and intentional in addressing learning outcomes for all students: The intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society (de Wit, Hunter, Howard, & Egron-Polak, 2015, emphasis in original) Perhaps this new definition will guide educators toward more intentional approaches and consideration of intercultural learning outcomes; however, it will also require serious collaboration in our institutions between administrators, those who market internationalization, and those responsible for curriculum and teaching. Although institutional rhetoric claiming intercultural learning is often present on websites and in promotional materials, learning outcomes with these foci may not be the reality of all students’ educational experiences. Champions of internationalization may claim that increased campus diversity leads to increased global mindedness among students; however, substantive intercultural learning does not result from being in the proximity of cultural difference (Arkoudis et al., 2012; Bennett, 2012; Knight, 2011; Leask, 2010; Lee et al., 2012). To the contrary, there is ample evidence framed by intergroup contact theory, indicating that without guidance and 55 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning the proper conditions, imposed diversity can lead to entrenched stereotypes and increased divisiveness (Allport, 1954; Crichton & Scarino, 2007; Sidanius, Levin, van Larr, & Sears, 2008). Although research studies involving intercultural learning are becoming popular within education, the majority tend to either focus on pre-service teachers (Davies, 2006; Schoorman & Bogotch, 2010a; Ukpokodu, 2003) or faculty members (Caruna, 2010; Dewey & Duff, 2009; DeJaeghere & Zhang, 2008; Olsen & Kroeger, 2001; Odgers & Giroux, 2006). Less common are studies that attempt to answer questions in regard to the intercultural learning of students, particularly domestic students. Of the research to date that does measure students’ intercultural learning, the bulk document the outcomes of study abroad programs or mobility experiences (Engle & Engle, 2004; Nichols, 2011; Savicki, 2008; Vande Berg, Connor-Linton, & Paige, 2009, Vande Berg, Paige, & Lou, 2012). A handful of qualitative studies have examined the classroom experience in terms of the intercultural interactions between students (Absalom & Vadura, 2006; Gu, Schweisfurth, & Day, 2009; Harrison & Peacock, 2008; Leask, 2010), and a few that influenced this study take a more comprehensive approach to understanding students’ intercultural development (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005; Brown, 2008; Grayson, 2008; Jon, 2009). This chapter provides mixed methods data and analysis that demonstrate the need for a more informed, inclusive and intentional approach. BACKGROUND The intercultural literature reveals a variety of strategies, models, and frameworks for educators to incorporate intercultural learning (Deardorff, 2009; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005; Leask, 2010; Olsen & Kroeger, 2001; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009; Stone, 2006; Volet & Ang, 1998) as well as models and tools for assessment (Bennett, 1993; Deardorff, 2009; Fantini, 2009; Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003; Hunter, White, & Godbey, 2006). Several scholars have provided definitions of intercultural competence, most referring to effective communication and interaction. Intercultural learning is widely associated with three domains: • • • Affective, Cognitive, and Behavioural (Paige, 1993) or attitudes, knowledge, and skills (Deardorff, 2006; 2009). The present study was guided by Bennett’s (2009) definition “acquiring increased awareness of subjective cultural contexts (worldviews), including one’s own, and 56 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning developing a greater ability to interact sensitively and competently across cultural contexts” (p. 1); as well as Deardorff’s (2009) Process Model of Intercultural of Intercultural Competence as a learning framework in which individuals develop the attitudes, knowledge, and skills for both internal and external outcomes. Contemporary students and instructors require these competencies not only to function effectively in diverse classrooms but also to apply disciplinary knowledge to working with increasingly diverse populations and interconnected global issues. Educators must seriously consider if and how this is being addressed. Successful participation in twenty-first century society, as well as university campus life, requires the development of intercultural capacities (Abdi, 2011; Asgharzadeh, 2008; Lee et al., 2012; Shultz, 2011). Although there are numerous sites where students may gain intercultural and global competencies, from their personal experiences to exchanges on social media, educators must continue to explore whether what and how we teach is enabling the development of these competencies. While intercultural learning may be considered the domain of the humanities, Lee et al. (2012) assert that the ways in which educators can facilitate intercultural learning need not be limited by disciplinary content or focus. Indeed, intercultural learning is critical for all disciplines and all students which is why an understanding of how demographic variables, pedagogy, and curriculum influence intercultural learning is timely. THE RESEARCH This chapter presents the results of a mixed methods study conducted to examine the intercultural development of students during their final phase of undergraduate study and to explore their perceptions of intercultural learning in academic environments. The research design followed what Greene (2007) has called a blended integrated design in which the use of different methods is “to assess varied facets of the same complex phenomenon, representing the mixed methods purpose of complementarity” (p.126). In a blended design, methods are implemented concurrently and the integration is intentional at various stages of the study, so that the methods, “samples, instruments, data sets, and analyses may ‘interact’ or ‘have a conversation’ with one another during the conduct of a study” (Greene, 2007, p. 125). Enhancing our understanding of students’ intercultural learning requires quantitative measures to gauge their development, as well as qualitative data to understand their experience. In order to explore students’ development and their perceptions of intercultural learning, the following questions were posed: 57 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning 1. 2. 3. 4. What is the difference between the perceived and actual intercultural development of students studying third and fourth year courses? Do student demographics or academic discipline influence intercultural development? How do students perceive intercultural learning in academic settings? How do students regard curriculum and pedagogy as influencers of intercultural learning? The first two questions were explored through quantitative analysis of scores from the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI). The relationships between IDI scores and the demographic variables of gender, age, time spent abroad, member of an ethnic minority, institution, student status, and academic discipline were explored through univariate, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Focus group discussion data was transcribed and analyzed in Nvivo through thematic coding. Methods Quantitative data was collected through online completion of the Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer, 1999). The IDI is an established psychometric tool that measures individual’s and group’s orientations towards cultural difference on a developmental scale from more ethnocentric mindsets to more ethnorelative mindsets based on Bennett’s (1986; 1993; 2010) widely accepted Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). The IDI provides scores in five developmental subscales which represent the first five of the six DMIS scales. These subscale scores provide cumulative scores for a perceived orientation (PO) and a developmental orientation (DO) of each respondent. The perceived score (PO) is an unweighted calculation of the subscale scores and represents where the individual or group perceive their development to be. The developmental orientation (DO) score is a weighted calculation and represents where the instrument actually places an individual or group on the developmental continuum. The difference between the two scores is called the orientation gap (OG). Participant scores for perceived orientation (PO), developmental orientation (DO), and orientation gap (GO) were generated to provide descriptive statistics for which the significance was confirmed by a paired t-test. In order to explore variances in IDI scores across the various demographics involved in this study univariate, analyses of variance using the General Linear Model (GLM) were conducted. P levels were set for 95% confidence. An ANOVA design allowed for testing of variance both within groups and between groups to determine if differences between groups were significant. Main effects for eight factors on each dependent variable (IDI test scores) were determined by F-ratios. Interactions among variables were included in subsequent models to test 58 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning for how variables in combination influenced variance. Unfortunately, the model was unable to adequately test for interactions due to uneven cell sizes exacerbated by the number of variables. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed, thematically coded, and analyzed for patterns revealing prevalent or absent perspectives of students based on a specific set of questions, as well as the free flowing discussions of each group. All focus group recordings were transcribed and analyzed using classical content analysis in which content was coded into units and grouped according to categories in order to make valid inferences from the text in context (Krippendorf, 2004). In addition to classic content analysis and key words-in-context (Onwuegbuzie, Dickinson, Leech & Zoran, 2011), analysis also employed dialectical inquiry that paid close attention not only to the content of what was said, but the tone in which it was said and the reaction and interaction of other participants (Wilkinson, 2005). In the view of Onwuebbuzie et al. (2005) although transcript or text based analysis may be the most rigorous analysis, analyzing the degree of consensus and dissent can increase validity. Participants were upper level (third and fourth year) students completing programs in two regional institutions that intentionally diversify the student population through international recruitment. Participants (N=178) that submitted useable surveys were represented across disciplines with the largest proportion representing: • • • • Academic Professions (Business, Economics, and Tourism) at 33% of total respondents, Arts students representing 21%, Professional Schools (Education, Nursing, and Social Work) 24%, and Science 22%. Focus groups (N=42) were also comprised of a relative balance of genders, academic disciplines, and international / domestic students. KEY FINDINGS: INTERCULTURAL DEVELOPMENT The first two research questions explored aspects of participants’ intercultural development: 1. 2. What is the difference between the perceived and actual intercultural development of students studying third and fourth year courses? Do student demographics influence perceived and actual scores? 59 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Question 1was answered through descriptive statistics of overall perceived and actual scores of the sample as measured by the IDI, and statistical significance was confirmed through a paired t-test. Question 2 was answered through inferential statistics by running univariate analyses of variance. Variables with statistically significant results at a 95% confidence rate and more than two factors were also analyzed using Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparisons to confirm the direction of the significance found in ANOVA. Three intercultural development scores provided the dependent variables: • • • Perceived orientation (PO), Developmental orientation (DO), and Orientation gap (OG). Seven independent variables were analyzed in relation to IDI scores: • • • • • • • Gender, Age, Time spent abroad, Member of an ethnic minority, Institution, Student status, and Academic discipline. First the descriptive statistics are presented along with t-test results that confirm statistical significance; next the results of the ANOVA run in the General Linear Model (GLM) for each demographic variable are discussed. Descriptive Statistics Figure 1 illustrates the range and percentages of DO scores. This distribution is both unbalanced and slightly skewed toward the lower developmental stages of the Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC). In this sample 59.2% place in Minimization or the cusp of Minimization, 15.2% place in Acceptance or on the cusp of Acceptance, and 25.7% place within the ethnocentric stages of either Denial or Polarization. To analyze the difference between the actual (DO) scores and the perceived (PO) scores, a comparison of the two was calculated through the orientation gap (OG). The PO and DO scores represent respondents’ positions within the five developmental stages on the IDC, where the OG scores indicate the degree of under or 60 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Figure 1. Percentage of and range full sample DO overestimation by measuring the difference between the perceived and actual scores. Table 1 provides a summary of the full sample scores. The mean orientation gap for this sample was 28.59 points on the IDC. A difference of seven points is considered an overestimation by the instruments’ developers (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). Each developmental phase comprises 15 points; therefore, the mean difference in this sample is close to two full developmental phases. The range of OG scores indicates that almost all respondents overestimated their intercultural development and some overestimated by almost four developmental phases at 56.74 points. In order to confirm the statistical significance of differences in PO and DO means, a paired, one tailed t-test was conducted, confidence was set to p<0.05. The results were significant: t(177)= 39.57, p=<.01 ANOVA Results Of the seven demographic variables tested, ANOVA results with 95% confidence level of p<0.05 found any variance to be statistically insignificant for gender, age, time spent abroad, member of an ethnic minority, and institution, as Table 2 demonstrates. Of the seven demographic variables tested only two unique to this study were found to be significant: academic discipline and student status. Analysis of Variance Table 1. Full sample summary scores, N=178 Min Max Mean sd PO (55.0-145.0) 107.87 133.45 120.36 5.61701 DO (55.0-145.0) 52.2 125.36 91.77 14.70331 OG 6.66 56.74 28.59 9.620673 61 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Table 2. Demographic variables: Not significant df Adj SS F Statistic p Value Gender PO ANOVA 1 89.14 3.28 0.072 Gender DO 1 676.7 3.65 0.058 Gender OG 1 274.63 3.48 0.064 Age PO 2 52.56 0.97 0.383 Age DO 2 173.3 0.47 0.628 Age OG 2 35.08 0.22 0.801 Time PO 3 98.49 1.21 0.309 Time DO 3 142.2 0.26 0.857 Time OG 3 5.06 0.02 0.996 EM PO 1 38.37 1.41 0.237 EM DO 1 20.3 0.11 0.741 EM OG 1 2.85 0.04 0.850 Institution PO 1 2.11 0.08 0.781 Institution DO 1 0.0 0.00 1.000 Institution OG 1 2.09 0.03 0.871 tests found academic discipline to be a statistically significant influence on intercultural development scores as measured by the IDI: • • • Perceived Orientation F (3) = 4.42, p = 0.005; Developmental Orientation F (3) = 3.39, p = 0.019; Orientation Gap F (3) = 2.78, p = 0.043. For all three dependent variables p values were less than 0.05 as illustrated in Tables 3, 4, and 5. Tukey-Kramer pairwise comparisons run at a 95% confidence level confirmed the ANOVA results and found two disciplines; Professional Schools and Science had significant variance in PO, DO, and OG means. Being a student in a Professional School influenced an increase in both perceived and developmental scores and decreased the overestimation (OG scores). Being a Science student influenced a decrease in both perceived and developmental scores and increased the overestimation (OG scores). Variances in other discipline scores were not significant. Student status also tested as significant for all three dependent variables: • • • 62 Perceived Orientation F (1) = 6.55, p = 0.011; Developmental Orientation F (1) = 10.43, p = 0.001; Orientation Gap F (1) = 11.89, p = 0.001. Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Table 3. Statistics and ANOVA results for academic discipline PO Min Max Mean sd Arts (n=37) Descriptive PO 108.88 133.42 119.92 4.716 Academic Prof (n=61) 107.7 133.5 120.20 6.186 Prof. Schools (n=37) 111.28 133.42 122.76 0.804 Science (n=43) 108.88 130.1 118.07 4.692 df Adj SS F Statistic p Value 3 360.54 4.42 0.005 ANOVA Discipline PO Table 4. Statistics and ANOVA results for academic discipline DO Min Max Mean sd Arts (n=37) Descriptive DO 64.2 125.36 91.50 12.189 Academic Prof (n=61) 52.2 116.82 89.03 16.44 Prof. Schools (n=37) 66.51 125.6 98.60 14.345 Science (n=43) 64.2 113.04 87.95 14.37 df Adj SS F Statistic p Value 3 1886.4 3.39 0.019 ANOVA Discipline DO Table 5. Statistics and ANOVA results for academic discipline OG Min Max Mean sd Arts (n=37) Descriptive OG 11.17 52.67 28.41 8.661 Academic Prof (n=61) 7.62 56.74 31.18 10.69 Prof. Schools (n=37) 6.66 47.47 24.16 9.431 Science (n=43) 16.44 45.09 30.18 7.775 df Adj SS F Statistic p Value 3 658.67 2.78 0.043 ANOVA Discipline OG Therefore, being an international student related to statistically significant higher perceptions of intercultural development, lower actual developmental scores, and larger overestimation of development. Tables 6, 7, and 8 show the relevant descriptive statistics and ANOVA results for student status for the dependent variables PO, DO, and OG respectively. ANOVA test results confirm that the differences in scores are due to between groups differences in all three dependent variables. Being a domestic student sig63 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Table 6. Statistics and ANOVA results for student status PO Min Max Mean sd International PO (n=41) Descriptive PO 107.87 133.85 118.16 6.043597 Domestic PO (n=137) 108.88 133.42 120.76 5.462981 df Adj SS F Statistic p Value 1 178.19 6.55 0.011 ANOVA Status PO Table 7. Statistics and ANOVA results for student status DO Descriptive DO Min Max Mean sd International DO (n=41) 52.2 116.82 85.51 15.91759 Domestic DO (n=137) 64.2 125.36 93.43 13.82425 df Adj SS F Statistic p Value 1 1933.9 10.43 0.001 ANOVA Status DO Table 8. Statistics and ANOVA results for student status OG Descriptive OG Min Max Mean sd International OG (n=41) 16.63 56.74 35.65 1.847894 Domestic OG (n=137) 6.66 46.15 27.38 .072855 df Adj SS F Statistic p Value 1 937.99 11.89 0.001 ANOVA Status OG nificantly increased PO and DO scores and decreased the overestimation (OG scores); whereas, being an international student significantly decreased PO and DO scores and increased the overestimation (OG scores). Summary of Analyses: Quantitative Descriptive and inferential statistical analysis of IDI data concluded that all but one of 178 respondents overestimated their intercultural development; with some OG scores representing nearly six (56.74) developmental scales. The mean developmental orientation was 91.77, sd 14.703, from which we can conclude that the majority of third and fourth year students graduating from B.C.’s regional institutions have not developed beyond the ethnocentric / transition stage of lower Minimization; yet, their perception of their development was inflated to the ethnorelative stage of Acceptance. 64 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Multiple univariate ANOVAs found statistically significant variation of means for all three response variables by two demographic variables unique to this study: • • Student status Academic discipline. Domestic student scores were significantly higher for both PO and DO showing that domestic students both perceived their development to be higher on the IDC and that their development actually was higher on the IDC. International students had higher OG scores indicating that they overestimate their development to a greater degree than do domestic students. The ANOVA results also indicated that academic discipline was statistically significant. Being a student in a Professional School influenced an increase in both perceived and developmental orientation scores. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons confirmed this also indicating that being a Science student influenced a decrease in the same scores. OG scores were also significant for these two disciplines with Science displaying the largest overestimation of development and Professional Schools the smallest. Neither Academic Profession nor Arts were found to be statistically significant influences on any of the response variables. Understanding the overall scores of the population and the significant demographic factors allowed for a more nuanced analysis of the focus group discussions. The focus group data illuminates a number of themes that taken together with the quantitative scores may help guide educators toward enhancing intercultural learning. The qualitative analysis is discussed next. KEY FINDINGS: QUALITATIVE Forty-two students participated in seven focus groups on two campuses by providing perspectives on intercultural learning in academic settings. Table 9 provides demographics for the participants. Table 9. Breakdown of focus group participant demographics International (N=7) Domestic (N=35) Male (n=19) 2 17 Female (n=23) 5 17 Arts (n=12) 2 10 Academic Profession (n=8) 3 5 Professional School (n=15) 2 14 Science (n=7) 0 7 65 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Three main categories were identified in the focus group data: • • • Intercultural experiences in academic settings, The influence of curriculum and pedagogy, and Student recommendations to enhance intercultural learning. Within each theme, sub themes emerged. Sub themes for intercultural experiences included the two solitudes that many participants experienced as a reality on both campuses; • • The tensions they negotiate in culturally diverse classrooms; and The use of avoidance as a strategy to mask fear, embarrassment, indifference, or perceived risk to academic success. Within the curriculum and pedagogy theme, sub themes included student perceptions that current curriculum merely scratches the surface and perceptions that pedagogy and instructional capacity are critical. Finally, student recommendations included more intentional interactions and interdisciplinary approaches. The following sections provide insights from each sub theme. Intercultural Experiences in Academic Settings: Two Solitudes Although none of the focus group questions directly asked participants to comment on interactions between domestic and international students, all focus group discussions arrived at commentary about the separate realities of the two groups; described by participants as divided for a variety of reasons. Some perceived the division as physical in that they were separated on campus or segregated themselves, others saw the division as a result of labels used for student classification, and others viewed the issue as procedural in terms of how the institution lacked intentionality in facilitating interaction. Table 10 below illustrates these sentiments. In each of the tables, demographic variables found to be significant in the quantitative analysis are provided in parentheses following each comment: • • • • • • 66 C=Canadian, I=International A=Arts, AP=Academic Profession, PS=Professional School, S=Science. Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Table 10. Intercultural experiences in academic settings: Two solitudes Physical Division There is no connection. It is like they go to a separate university except that we are on the same campus but there is no meshing of the two. (C-A) There is also some exclusion. There are pods. (I-AP) Well there is just this segregation that I don’t think is going to change no matter what they do. (C-S) Division Through Labels I see the international booth; I see that oh they are going tubing. It’s at the international place and it’s for people there, it’s not for everyone. They have all these really cool events and I would like to go but it seems like it’s unattainable for me just being a normal student. (C-S) I think there is a general assumption that something says international it is for international students. (C-PS) Like they have a separate orientation for internationals; they should make a general orientation because when you come in, that’s when you make your friends. From day one, the next week or so that’s when you make your friends. So if you segregate us we stick just to it. (I-AP) Lack of Facilitated Interaction The school in general really wants to have an international population here and are very proud of how far they’ve come to date. But I think now what they need to focus on is not how to get them here but what’s happening once they are here and that interaction and not being so segregated. So I think a lot more focus needs to happen on campus now that they are here. (C-AP) All they [international department] talk about is how to get more internationals in and that’s it. They don’t really bother about how the international students are going to settle or to make sure whether the internationals are really getting along with the domestics. (I-AP) Often times it ends up like it is Chinese week and all the Chinese are hanging out together but there is really no integration. I think there needs to be more encouragement to get us to integrate with them and them to integrate with us and vice versa. (C-PS) Yeah like they do all these programs for international students but they don’t really have anything to mix international and Canadian. (C-S)) Although both campuses in this study host large numbers of students from many countries around the world, the comments in this section reveal a reality that is not entirely inclusive. Whether the division is created by the students, the labels used to categorize, or service and programming approaches, it is clear that many students experience a divided campus. The next sections will address how the perceived divisions are exacerbated by classroom experiences. Intercultural Experiences in Academic Settings: Negotiating Tensions Students in all focus groups were forthcoming in discussing the tensions they navigate in multicultural classrooms. Many noted the lack of facilitated interaction between international and Canadian students. Others discussed frustrations arising from group work resulting in perceived exclusion and many pointed to English language 67 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning proficiency as a justification for the challenges of interacting. Table 11 provides samples of these types of comments. Participant comments revealed tensions in working across difference for a variety of reasons. Of particular interest were the tensions that arose in the actual focus groups themselves. Considering that participants were self-selected into a study on intercultural learning several discussions involved participants identifying or defending behaviors and attitudes that did not demonstrate intercultural competencies. The separation and tensions the comments illustrate in the previous two sections is complicated in the next section which provides examples of avoidance strategies students use to mitigate tensions. Table11. Intercultural experiences in academic settings: Negotiating tensions Lack of Interaction I think that we like learn the theories but we don’t interact enough with each other. It depends on the teacher and it depends on the course content. But there’s a lot of opportunities, especially in business, for us to be working with one another and working with other cultures and not all of the teachers approach it. Often times I wonder why they don’t. (C – AP) I’ve had some international students in my classes but there is not a lot of interaction so we don’t really have opportunities to learn from them. (C - A) The people in [town] are very helpful like when I go shopping or something like that, they are very kind and helpful. In fact, they are extremely helpful. But in class the domestic students they are not nice to us at all. They don’t talk to us. (I - AP) Group Work So you are saying that when they get to pick, Canadians want other Canadians in the group? (C-S). Yes, most of the time. (I-AP) Yes, but even during projects they ignore us. You are supposed to do it together; you are supposed to discuss it with the whole group and not just the domestic members. (I-AP) I’ve talked to some of the international students and they’ve expressed that it is hard to make friends with Canadian students, they want to but it can be hard. (C-PS) In class, in terms of group projects for example, it is quite true that Canadian students group together for group projects and internationals are together. I have two classes — in one I am with one Swiss and one Australian and in another I’m with a Serbian and Japanese. So you see these are different cultures but no Canadians involved. (I-AP) Monolingual Ideals In one of my classes I was put in a group with all domestics and they really made me feel left out. They wouldn’t speak to me, they had this stereotype that Indians don’t know how to speak English for some reason. (I-AP) You try to talk with them but they don’t even speak English, they won’t even talk. So there’s only so far you can work with a team without opening your mouth. (C-S) That happens a lot in Science because obviously there’s a huge barrier in Science where it becomes really difficult sometimes to work with the international students that don’t speak your language, they don’t understand what you are talking about. (C-S) If I just want to stay in Canada I only need to know one language, one culture even. (C-A) 68 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Table 12. Intercultural experiences in academic settings: Avoidance strategies Fear of Offending At times we are so afraid of offending them we kind of avoid contact with them, I find that can be harmful. (C-AP) In class we were having this huge discussion, it is mostly Canadian students in the classroom and I find a lot of them are quite nervous. For example, even caring for a Native patient can be quite intimidating. (C-PS) Practicing working with other cultures can take away the fear. (I-PS) Risk to GPA Maybe also it is a concern for Canadian students to keep their GPA and they don’t want to take the risk. I might do the same with a Canadian studying [in my country] “Sorry buddy, but I have to keep my GPA. (I-AP) I find it hard in university, you are working so hard towards your own grade and someone’s forcing a situation on you. (C-AP) I should get to learn the way that is benefiting me the most because I’m paying to be here. If someone doesn’t work well, that’s not my problem. (C-A) In school there’s usually walls up - there might be a couple of people that you have conversations with but the focus in school is getting that assignment done, getting the A. (C-S) Intercultural Experiences in Academic Settings: Avoidance Strategies The previous sections illustrated perceptions that intercultural interactions are fraught with barriers on campus and in the classroom. This theme explores how avoiding interaction or finding reasons to avoid interaction were prevalent in participant comments. Reasons for avoiding interactions across difference resulting in two main themes related to fear of appearing interculturally incompetent or risking hard won academic standing. Table 12 provides examples of these comments. Whether in group formation, facilitation of group work, or assessment of group work, participants clearly articulated the importance of intentional teaching practices to the success of intercultural interactions in academic settings. The next theme explores participants’ perspectives of beneficial or detrimental instructional practices, highlighting the benefits of pedagogy that surfaced multiple perspectives and practices. The Influence of Curriculum and Pedagogy As a study interested in students’ perceptions of intercultural learning in academic settings, the majority of directed focus group questions were specific to students’ educational experiences: 69 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning • • • • • In what ways has your program provided you with intercultural learning opportunities? Are there opportunities in your program to you to learn from each other? (In classes where a variety of cultural perspectives or practices are represented within the student composition) How do your instructors influence intercultural learning? Do you think your program has prepared you to effectively participate in a multicultural and global environment? How could universities improve intercultural learning opportunities? Or is it all good now? Although each focus group was asked the above questions, the discussions went in a variety of directions. Two main sub themes emerged: Perceptions that curriculum merely scratches the surface and perceptions that pedagogy and instructor capacity were critical for positive intercultural learning. Participants articulated a variety of positive and negative curricular influences to their intercultural learning. In particular, Anthropology, Geography, Nursing, and Tourism students were more likely to discuss their program and curricular content as influential; whereas, participants from Sciences consistently identified the absence of intercultural learning in their programs. However, even within those disciplines where participants discussed the program as influential, numerous comments also identified lost opportunities or what participants described as a lack of application for their learning. Several expressed that although their program included learning about other cultures or other parts of the world, in their opinion it fell short and only scratched the surface. Several participants discussed how they were taught theory or instructed to be culturally sensitive but never really given the opportunity to put their learning into practice. The comments above evidence that students across disciplines identified gaps in the curriculum that would support intercultural learning. Participants also identified pedagogical practices and instructional capacity as critical to their learning. In some cases, they discussed effective strategies that instructors had used, in others they pointed to instructors’ lack of knowledge or skill as a barrier to their learning opportunities. In a number of cases they identified lost opportunities where instructional choices limited meaningful interaction and perspective sharing. Table 14 provides insights into student perspectives on instructor capacity and pedagogy. The final comment in this section deserves more explanation. Dialectal analysis (Wilkinson, 2005) of this discussion provided interesting insights. When this comment was made, research notes indicate that other participants did not react with surprise or question the practice; there was simply nodding and silence leaving an impression that this type of practice was not an isolated incident. 70 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Table 13. The influence of curriculum and pedagogy: Scratching the surface Scratching the Surface I think my program wants to... and it sort of brushes the surface a little, but it doesn’t actually...I think it rather fails actually. I think my program wants us to be aware of other cultures and there’s lots of different perspectives and we talk about that but that’s just really surfacy. (C-PS) The theory is presented to us but in no way, shape or form are we forced or even asked to practice it. It’s more like “well if you’re interested” or “you should be aware of this.” (C-AP) In the education program I don’t think we get enough discussion about intercultural awareness. Just recently we got a little bit; we were told a little bit about ESL. (C-PS) I would say very little. Now we think of science as a universal thing that most cultures strive for in terms of knowledge acquisition. But it definitely isn’t always that way. It is, I guess amongst developed, industrialized nations. And that’s all we really learn about in the science field, just what’s going on here and furthering that knowledge base and not really cultural implications of this knowledge or those experiments or that procedure is not ever really discussed at all. (C-S) Unfortunately, [intercultural learning] was not built in as much as it could have been...it would have been really nice to have not just a discussion but a whole course about how to respect different cultures. I just think that could have been more valuable in Education courses — just a bigger global aspect in Education, the background about education in different cultures. (C-PS) I can say in my program there is none. (I-A) The university as a whole, I wouldn’t say, not in my upper level classes anyways, there has been any focus on anything outside of Canada at all. (C-A) Participants also offered their perspectives regarding how educators might improve opportunities for intercultural learning, interaction, and engaging with multiple perspectives. Recommendations included intentional and interdisciplinary approaches. Table 15 captures some recommendations of the participants. These comments illustrate the importance participants placed on opportunities to enhance learning by providing ideas for interdisciplinary approaches. Summary of Analysis: Qualitative The qualitative analysis considered Bennett’s (1986) DMIS model in terms of the tone of comments and how they related to the IDI scores. Individual IDI profiles also include “leading” or “trailing” orientations. A trailing orientation may cause an individual, in certain situations, to revert to a previous orientation. A leading orientation is related to an individual’s perceived orientation; where they perceive themselves to be. Therefore, participant comments may have been related to their trailing orientation, where under pressure their comments are characteristic of former mindsets, or they may have represented leading orientations in which participants projected their perceived orientation in discourse. Participant comments were interpreted as potentially representative of intercultural mindset but did not pretend to interpret where a participant’s IDI score might actually be. Deardorff’s Process Model also informed the analysis in terms of how participants framed and displayed intercultural learning. Although Deardorff’s (2006) Process 71 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Table 14. The influence of curriculum and pedagogy: Importance of pedagogy Instructor Capacity It totally depends on the instructor’s capacity. (I-AP) It really depends on the instructor, the instructor’s background. What they want to choose for a methodology or concepts, textbooks; what they want to put in. (C-A) There’s a big difference how different instructors react to having international students in their class. Some instructors didn’t want to know about anything at all. (C-A) Some of the teachers definitely want people to learn more about it, especially in HR or international business. Otherwise, I don’t think the teachers care who you work with or what you learn besides the course material. (I-AP) Pedagogies Perceived as Positive My one teacher shows a lot of video clips and again depending on where it is from it will have a different spin on it, but she shows it and then has a discussion around it and lets us form our own opinion. And I really like the way that she says she has questions for us to consider... but she doesn’t always have the answer. (C-A) For our silviculture class our instructor brought in someone who has done a lot of work in South America to talk to us specifically about the type of forestry and forestry practice that they had going on there. A point of contrast to what we do here a lot of it’s to do with government and legislation but that it was important to view the work that we do here... understanding what’s happening, what’s done in the rest of the world. (C-S) One of our professors implemented a global picture exchange with a class in [country]... we did what does each human right mean to you? We could see the similarities and differences. That was really amazing. I wish there was more time. (C-PS) I think teachers could bring in guest speakers. In one of our classes we had some people from international week come to our classes, a doctor from Ghana. It was very interesting to me. (I-PS) Pedagogies Perceived as Negative I don’t feel like they give you the opportunity to really give your own perspectives. Some instructors do but just to a certain extent. (C-A) No there’s no real discussion about it - there is just an implied sort of acceptance that this is the way it is. That what we are teaching you is the way that it is everywhere - this fact, that fact. (C-S) It is implied that it is accepted that this is the truth. You don’t ever learn of other ways. (I-A) I had a teacher that did that too [made us form multicultural groups] but she did it in a really derogatory way. It actually blew my mind that she did this. It was one of my marketing classes. She was willing to hand out extra marks for anyone that would work with a foreign student; any white kids that would work with foreign students. That’s pretty forward. (C-AP) Model does not directly measure intercultural competence, it provides a framework by which to interpret components of competence both internally and externally, as well as through the requisite attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Deardorff (2009) explains that while internal outcomes may be assessed by the individual, external outcomes necessitate the assessment of others involved in the interaction. Therefore, the reactions of other participants and researcher notes provided additional means through which to interpret interactions. Deardorff (2009) states that attitudes serve as the basis for her model and therefore influence all other aspects of competency development. The majority of participants in all seven focus groups discussed intercultural competence as including respect, curiosity, and openness. Although participants generally communicated an under72 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Table 15. Student recommendations Intentional Instruction With technology these days... you could even have international instructors instructing a class. (C-A) So I would love if even more integration of different cultures or if international students came into our class for even half an hour - and just meeting each other. I would have no problem with that; I would very much like that. (C-PS) Even if they would promote us going out and learning about different countries — finding students from Sweden, from wherever because everyone is here. Then it would be really hands on and some awesome learning could be created. (I-AP) Or talking to people doing the same class as you on the other side of the world, you know linking up different people so that you can see their point of view. (C-A) Interdisciplinary Approaches The fact that First Nations Studies are a program is detrimental. Unless it is an elective you can only learn about that if you are in the program. There should be a First Nations Studies for Nursing, for Science. (C-PS) I think they should offer a course. Not a mandatory course but one that you could take if you were interested. Let’s call it “Globalization and Cultural Diversity”, or maybe “Globalization and the Future” because we have enough history courses already. (C-A) I think education needs to be more multidisciplinary. I think that a sociology course should be added on to everyone’s requirements rather than just the English course (C-A) Entry level courses give everyone a broad overview and you don’t need a lot of analytical understanding. (C-S) When I started Nursing there was a mandatory course in Anthropology. (C-PS) I think that one of the biggest downfalls of universities is that the programs are so compartmentalized. So having that interdisciplinary option of... I hear so many people say “I think everyone in university should take this class.” We can’t ignore the fact that we are global citizens and we are going to face critical issues with relationships with other cultures and understanding our own. So maybe beginning with every program having a mandatory Anthropology course... or .... (I-PS) standing that attitudes were an important aspect of intercultural learning, researcher observation noted that at times their rhetoric was undermined by the surfacing of alternate attitudes, many times by the same speaker who previously proclaimed the importance of being open minded. These instances provided additional evidence of an inflated confidence that did not always translate to intercultural skills. The Process Model moves from attitudes to knowledge and skills. Deardorff (2006, 2009) includes cultural self-awareness within the knowledge and skills quadrant. It is interesting to note that there was a lack of commentary from participants that reflected deep cultural self-awareness. Although a few individual participants evidenced some degree of cultural self-awareness, their comments were less clearly articulated than when discussing the need for knowledge of other cultural perspectives. Researcher notes commented on the lack of cultural self-awareness in both behaviour and comments, as well as the absence of any substantive discussion of this as a necessary component of intercultural learning. The other aspects of Deardorff’s knowledge component are deep cultural knowledge and sociolinguistic awareness. Throughout all focus group discussions there was surprisingly little display of deep 73 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning cultural knowledge. Comments that referred to knowledge about other cultures were limited to surface knowledge about eye contact or the wearing of veils. Moreover, comments about the deficiencies of non-native English speakers evidenced a lack of sociolinguistic awareness by some participants. As a causal model, Deardorff’s (2006, 2009) Process Model moves through individual competence development to competence in interaction with others. For Deardorff these represent internal outcomes involving informed frame of reference shifts that include adaptability, flexibility, ethnorelative view, and empathy, and external outcomes which involve effective and appropriate communication and behaviour in intercultural situations. In the analysis of participant comments, it was clear that many participants routinely framed intercultural knowledge and skills as necessary for professional reasons; whereas, fewer highlighted the need in terms of personal or societal benefits. Those participants who saw intercultural knowledge and skills as necessary for personal growth or effective citizenship were less articulate, and more general or sweeping in their comments. The fact that the majority of participants framed intercultural competence in terms of external rather than internal outcomes may reflect the statistics reported where the difference between perceived and developmental scores evidenced significant orientation gaps for the majority of respondents. LINKING THE DATA SETS The findings of this study provide evidence that assumptions of intercultural learning as an assured outcome of internationalization may be misguided. Increased cultural diversity does not necessarily lead to positive interactions between groups (Arkoudis et al., 2012; Bennett, 2012; Knight, 2011; Leask, 2010; Lee et al., 2012) and in some cases may result in increased stereotypes and biases (Crichton & Scarino, 2007; Sidanius, Levin, van Larr & Sears, 2008) The quantitative data (N=178), using both descriptive and inferential statistics of IDI scores, and the qualitative analysis of focus group (N=42) discussions provide evidence that there is much room for improvement if intercultural learning is to be substantive. The main findings include: • • • 74 Upper level students in two of BC’s regional universities overestimate their intercultural development by between one and four developmental phases of the Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC). 85% of upper level students in two of BC’s regional universities are in the transition stage between ethnocentric and ethnorelative worldview or below. Student status and academic discipline were associated with statistically significant variations in intercultural development scores. International student Internationalization and Intercultural Learning • scores were significantly different than domestic student scores on all three response variables: lower PO, lower DO, and larger OG. Professional school students had significantly higher PO, higher DO, and smaller OG; whereas, science students had lower PO and DO scores and larger OG. Students perceived both curriculum and pedagogy as influencers of intercultural and; yet, identified a lack of content and application of learning, as well as choice of course and instructor as the factors of whether they would have these learning opportunities. Furthermore, they identified institutional processes as inhibiting interaction outside of the classroom IDI scores in Minimization are not uncommon in undergraduate profiles. Several of the studies reviewed reported mean scores within Minimization (Brown, 2008; Carter, 2006; Jon, 2009; Nichols, 2011; Paige, Yershova and DeJaeghere, 2003; Pederson, 2009). Of particular interest to this study was the significant overestimation of participants in their intercultural development as measured by the orientation gap. Although focus group participants articulated the importance of intercultural learning, there was less evidence that their learning had been internalized. Both general comments and those related specifically to classroom experiences indicate that cultivating cultural self-awareness was not often encouraged as part of learning, where experts agree it is a necessary component of intercultural development (Bennett, 2009; Deardorff, 2006; 2009; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005). The lack of discussion regarding skill development is also informative, and confirmed by the lack of scores in the acceptance or adaptation range of the IDC. The quantitative analysis revealed that the intercultural development of students was significantly related to their field of study. In addition, comments from participants representing sciences in focus group discussions indicated that science students’ perceptions of their curriculum can be that it typically represents one world view and does not consider other ways of understanding the world or how the Western scientific approach may impact diverse populations locally or globally. While IDI scores for participants representing professional schools were higher with slightly less overestimation, the mean score was still in minimization. Focus group data provided a number of comments in which these participants acknowledged that although curriculum did address intercultural themes; their perception was often that it was not substantial and rarely allowed for the application of the learning towards skills development typical of more advanced stages of the IDC. Although the quantitative findings did not indicate statistical significance in IDI scores for participants studying academic professions, researcher notes from discussions revealed that while many of them claimed to have studied intercultural and global themes, their understanding was often superficial and limited to the cognitive rather than affective or behavioral outcomes. Participants from all four 75 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning disciplinary groups commented on either the absence of curricular content or that the content merely scratched the surface. However, students studying academic professions revealed the most challenges in terms of negotiating cultural differences in academic settings. This is likely due to the fact that these disciplines often attract the most international students creating highly diverse classroom settings in which multicultural group work is the norm. These participants were also the most vocal regarding classroom tensions and the critical role of pedagogy. Analyses of student perceptions and comments from the focus group data, in conjunction with the qualitative analysis of IDI data, allow educators to consider how curriculum and pedagogy within academic disciplines, as well as student status and institutional approaches, influence students’ intercultural development. The quantitative findings alone are only able to give a snapshot of the levels of development of students completing undergraduate degrees in internationalized, regional institutions and how demographic variables relate to these levels. Taken together with the qualitative analysis, we begin to see in more depth how educational experiences influence development. We also begin to understand what we might put in place moving forward. DISCUSSION Scholars of internationalization have been warning educators to consider re-visioning internationalization with an outcomes focus (Garson, 2016). Indeed, Brandenburg and deWitt (2011) suggest that thinking of internationalization as a goal has been erroneous as it should be framed as a means to a goal, rather than the goal itself. If that goal is framed as educational outcomes for all students, then it is clear we need another vision, as Asgharzadeh (2008) suggests: We need a vision of international education that pays attention to the educational and social needs of multicultural student populations. To this end, policies and practices of teaching, learning, and educational delivery need to move away from conventional methods based on monolingualism and monoculturalism (p. 340) One of the educational and social needs we might attend to is intercultural learning with a focus on preparing students to be more effective professionals and citizens in increasingly interconnected and multicultural contexts. In order to do this, we must intentionally facilitate interaction between culturally diverse students to create opportunities for learning, rather than rely on the myth that merely bringing international students to our campuses will provide these opportunities (Knight, 2011). Given the findings of this study, the following approaches are recommended. 76 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Intentional and Interdisciplinary Approaches Focus group analysis identified that an interdisciplinary approach could enhance intercultural learning outcomes. Interdisciplinary collaboration is also advocated for by Crichton and Scarino (2007), Hudzik (2011), Lee et al. (2012), Mestenhauser (1998), and Odgers and Giroux (2006). Moreover, Leask’s (2012) Conceptual Framework for Internationalizing the Curriculum puts the “knowledge in and across the disciplines” (p. 3) at the centre flanked on one side by the institutional, national, and global contexts and on the other by dominant and emerging paradigms within the discipline. Focus group data indicated that many students were dissatisfied with the depth of their intercultural learning. If instructors were to revisit curriculum using Leask’s (2012) Process Model for Internationalizing the Curriculum in which educators are invited to move through a five step process to evaluate, review and reflect, imagine, revise, plan, and act; they may find innovative ways to allow students to apply their learning. Moving through these stages allows for faculty to see where revisions are necessary and possible. Killick (2006) and Jones and Killick (2007) also provide guidelines for revising curriculum for educators to rethink both content and delivery methods. Participants in this study discussed the use of technology and experiential learning as potential ways to engage student learning. The possibilities presented by the use of technology to learn about other worldviews and practices are endless. Furthermore, experiential learning of this kind has been established as a high impact learning experience by Kuh (2008). Educators should also consider the developmental and causal models presented in the intercultural literature (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). Bennett’s (1986; 1993) DMIS, King and Baxter Magolda’s (2005) Model of Intercultural Maturity, and Deardorff’s (2006) Process Model could also be used as frameworks for how learning can be scaffolded throughout a program in order to balance challenge with support and meet learners at the stage from which they can experience development. Furthermore, these models all include successive learning in the cognitive, affective, and behavioral realms and so necessitate moving away from the tendency to present students with cognitive materials without allowing the development of attitudes and skills. Providing opportunities for students to apply knowledge and develop skills can be enhanced through intentional design and facilitation of opportunities in which they can interact with difference. Participants in this study were clear that in many cases their interaction is limited due to silos created either by the demographic labels or separate services provided by their institution; therefore, student service professionals should consider ways to integrate programming where possible while at the same time retaining service specifics unique to each demographic group. In particular, orientation and activity 77 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning programming should aim to socialize students to an intercultural and globally minded ethos early on rather than provide separate programming that divides, labels, and positions demographic groups from the outset. This socialization should not only focus on the integration of culturally diverse learners to the institutional culture, but introduce all students to the global nature of the campus — as Jones and Killick (2007) suggest the diversity and development of both domestic and international students should be considered. Both the IDI scores and participant comments indicate that student services programming should also carefully consider the incorporation of intercultural learning from orientation onward and design developmental opportunities throughout student engagement activities. These opportunities should not be ad hoc but should be carefully planned according to intercultural learning models. Initial programming in the first and second years should employ intercultural development approaches aimed toward the lower phases of development and not begin with more complex identity issues or cultural differentiation models that could serve to entrench ethnocentric mindsets and stunt development. Student development professionals should be aware of the impacts of intergroup contact and become knowledgeable regarding intercultural competence development. The IDI scores and statistical analysis provide another area of concern, namely the differences in scores between international and domestic students. International students had higher PO scores, lower DO scores and consistently overestimated their intercultural development by more than one full developmental phase and in most cases by between two and four phases. This finding may be surprising to those who have assumed that international students have developed intercultural skills as a result of studying internationally. The results are not as surprising if one considers the central assumption of Bennett’s (1986; 1993) model that it is one’s experience of cultural difference and how one construes the experience, that leads to development. Many international students join us from previously monocultural experiences and may not have had much exposure to multicultural environments. Therefore, it is essential that student services personnel support programming with consistent and scaffolded opportunities for international students to develop both cultural self-awareness and understanding of other cultural practices through experiential, constructivist programming (Vande Berg et al., 2012) and opportunities for reflection. Although the scores for the entire sample were disappointingly low, the international student scores were decidedly skewed to the lower phases, with an alarming number in the first phase of Denial in which the importance of cultural similarities and differences is simply denied. Another large proportion scored in Polarization indicating an “us and them” orientation in which either the home or the host culture are viewed as superior. The implications of this finding for educators are serious. 78 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning International student support personnel are aware of the challenges faced by international students; however, this data confirms the need for an enhanced approach to supporting international students. How can educational supports to improve international student success be effective if a clear majority of students are unable to acknowledge or refuse to navigate the complex cultural nuances involved in achieving success in another cultural context? How can these young sojourners be supported to reflect on their cultural preferences and similarities and differences with Canadian culture if they are in Denial or Polarization? Theoretically Grounded Approaches Educational programming in general could be guided by developmental models such as Bennett’s (1986; 1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity or King & Baxter Magolda’s (2005) Model of Intercultural Maturity or what Sptizberg and Changnon (2009) have termed “causal path” models such as Deardorff’s (2006; 2009) Process Model or Ting-Toomey’s (1999) Multilevel Process Change Model of Intercultural Competence to guide students’ development throughout their undergraduate years. Moreover, programming specific to international students’ development should also consider what Spitzberg and Changnon term “adaptational” models, such as Kim’s (1998) Intercultural Communicative Competence Model or Berry, Kim, Power, Young, and Bujaki’s (1989) Attitude Acculturation Model. There is no shortage of models to guide educators in supporting students’ intercultural development; educators simply must familiarize themselves with the models that suit their intended outcomes in order to create theoretically grounded programming that will support student development and adaptation. Programming should be guided by research and scholarship, use clearly stated learning outcomes and include assessment of learning outcomes (Deardorff, 2004; 2006). Lee et al. (2012) cite years of research to support their claim that “intentionally designed and actively facilitated intercultural interactions” (p.5) are critical to the development of students’ intercultural and global competency development. Indeed, almost 20 years ago Volet and Ang (1998) warned “that unless inter-cultural contact is engineered as a part of formal study, social cohesion will not happen and all students will miss out on critical learning opportunities” (p. 8). FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The limitations of this study’s size and scope alone present the requirement for further study. The quantitative findings which showed statistically significant results that student status and academic discipline are related to intercultural development 79 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning scores as measured by the IDI should be corroborated in further studies including larger urban institutions and more specific disciplines and programs. This study chose four groupings for academic discipline. Future research should investigate specific disciplines, as well as disciplines not included in this study. The result that being an international student is significantly associated with lower developmental scores should be further investigated by country demographic in order for educators to more clearly understand which student groups may require additional supports. A balanced research design that could investigate the interaction effects of independent variables or allow for multiple regression analysis would be beneficial in further understanding how student demographics are associated to intercultural development scores. Furthermore, future study should include other extra-curricular and co-curricular experiences as additional influences. The qualitative results indicate that students would welcome more intercultural learning as they see this as an important element of their development. However, the results also demonstrated that student perceptions of pedagogy and curriculum are not always positive and are rarely systematic. Future research might investigate how curriculum and pedagogy influence intercultural development and should also include faculty perspectives in order to better understand promising practices in fostering development for students. CONCLUSION This study has filled a gap in the literature by providing educators with evidence of students’ intercultural in academic settings. The findings and discussion can encourage educators to enhance intercultural learning through intentional pedagogical and curricular revision in order to best prepare our graduates for the multicultural and globalized environments they will need to succeed in. There are many dedicated educators working on strategies to enhance intercultural learning as demonstrated by the literature review and discussion. Although much excellent scholarship has begun to show us the way, this study makes clear there is still much work to be done. The findings are an invitation for educators to act. Through critical engagement with the teaching and learning process it is possible to provide students with learning specific to their disciplines while at the same time providing them with opportunities to understand their personal, professional, and social positions within the complex world in which they will apply their post-secondary learning. 80 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning REFERENCES Abdi, A. A. (2011). De-monoculturalizing global citizenship education: The need for multicentric intentions and practices. In L. Shultz, A. A. Abdi, & G. H. Richardson (Eds.), Global citizenship education in post-secondary institutions: Theories, practices, policies (pp. 25–39). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. doi:10.3726/978-1-4539-0136-6/7 Absalom, M., & Vadura, K. (2006). Student perceptions of internationalization of the curriculum: An Australian case study. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 5(3), 317–334. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co. Arkoudis, S., Yu, X., Baik, C., Borland, H., Chang, S., Lang, L., . . . Watty, K. (2010). Finding Common Ground: Enhancing interaction between domestic and international students. Australian Learning Council. Retrieved from: http://www. cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/experience/enhancing_interact.html Asgharzadeh, A. (2008). The return of the subaltern: International education and politics of voice. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(4), 334–363. doi:10.1177/1028315307308137 Bennett, M. (2009). Defining, measuring, and facilitating intercultural learning: Introduction to the special issues. Journal of Intercultural Education, 20(S1). Bennett, M. (2012). Turning cross-cultural contact into intercultural learning. Proceedings of the Universidad 2012 8th International Congress on Higher Education. The University for Sustainable Development. Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 178–196. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(86)90005-2 Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 1–34). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology, 38(2), 185–206. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1989.tb01208.x 81 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Brandenberg, U., & deWit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. Trends, Issues and Challenges in Internationalisation of Higher Education. Amsterdam: Center for Applied Research on Economics & Management, School of Economics and Management. Brown, M. (2008). A mixed methods examination of college students’ intercultural development (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3328774) Brustien, W. I. (2007). The global campus: Challenges and opportunities for higher education in North America. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11, 398–413. doi:10.1177/1028315307303918 Carter, K. (2006). Did we make a difference? Contributors to intercultural sensitivity development in undergraduate students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Loyola University, Chicago, IL. Caruana, V. (2010). The relevance of the internationalised curriculum to graduate capability: The role of new lecturers’ attitudes in shaping the ‘student voice. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalization and the student voice: Higher education perspectives (pp. 30–42). New York, NY: Rutledge. Crichton, J., & Scarino, A. (2007). How are we to understand the “intercultural dimension”? An examination of the intercultural dimension of internationalisation in the context of higher education in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 4.1-4.21. Davies, L. (2006). Global citizenship: Abstraction or framework for action? Educational Review, 58(1), 5–25. doi:10.1080/00131910500352523 Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–265. doi:10.1177/1028315306287002 Deardorff, D. K. (2009). Implementing intercultural competence assessment. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 477–491). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeJaeghere, J. G., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Development of intercultural competence among US American teachers: Professional development factors that enhance competence. Intercultural Education, 19(3), 255–268. doi:10.1080/14675980802078624 82 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Dewey, P., & Duff, S. (2009). Reason before passion: Faculty views on internationalization in higher education. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 58(4), 491–504. doi:10.1007/ s10734-009-9207-z de Witt, H., Hunter, F., Howard, L., & Egron-Polak, E. (2015). Internationalisation of higher education. Brussels, Belgium: Policy Department B: Structural Cohesion Policies, European Parliament. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/540370/IPOL_ STU(2015)540370_EN.pdf Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2004). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity development in relation to study abroad program design. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 219-236. Fantini, A. E. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools. In D.K. Deardorff, (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence, (pp. 456-476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Garson, K. (2016). Reframing internationalization. Canadian Journal of Higher Education. 46(2), 19-39. Grayson, J. P. (2008). The experiences and outcomes of domestic and international students at four Canadian universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 27(3), 215–230. doi:10.1080/07294360802183788 Green, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gu, Q., Schweisfurth, M., & Day, C. (2009). Learning and growing in a “foreign” context: Intercultural experiences of international students. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(1), 7-23. Guimaraes-Iosif, R. (2011). Rethinking citizenship education in higher education institutions through the lens of critical pedagogy: Educating the local and global emancipated citizen. In A. A. Abdi & G. H. Richardson (Eds.), Global citizenship education in post-secondary institutions: Theories, practices, policies (pp. 76–93). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Intercultural Development Inventory. In R. M. Paige (Guest Ed.). Special issue on the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 421–443. 83 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Harrison, N., & Peacock, N. (2010). Interactions in the international classroom: The UK perspective. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalization and the student voice: Higher education perspectives (pp. 125–142). New York, NY: Routledge. Hudzik, J. K. (2011). Comprehensive internationalization: From concept to action. Washington, DC: NAFSA, The Association of International Educators. Hudzik, J. K., & Stohl, M. (2009). Modelling assessment of the outcomes and impacts of internationalisation. In H. de Witt (Ed.), Measuring success in international education (pp. 9-22) European Association for International Education. Hunter, B., White, G. P., & Godbey, G. C. (2006). What does it mean to be globally competent? Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 267–285. doi:10.1177/1028315306286930 Jon, J. (2009). The new landscape of Korean higher education: Institutional and personal factors influencing intercultural competence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Duluth, MN. Jones, E., & Killick, D. (2007). Internationalisation of the curriculum. In E. Jones & S. Brown (Eds.), Internationalising Higher Education (pp. 109–119). London: Routledge. Killick, D. (2006). Cross-Cultural Capability & Global Perspectives. Guidelines for Curriculum Review. Leeds, UK: Leeds Metropolitan University. Kim, Y. Y. (1988). Communication and cross-cultural adaptation: An integrative theory. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. King, P., & Baxter Magolda, M. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 571–592. doi:10.1353/ csd.2005.0060 Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5–31. doi:10.1177/1028315303260832 Knight, J. (2011). Five myths about internationalization. Industry and Higher Education, 62, 14–15. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 84 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Kuh, G. D. (2008). High impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Leask, B. (2010). ‘Beside me is an empty chair: The student experience of internationalisation. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalization and the student voice: Higher education perspectives (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Routledge. Leask, B. (2012). Internationalization of the curriculum (IoC) in action: A guide. Sydney: University of South Australia. Lee, A., Poch, R., Shaw, M., & Williams, R. (2012). Engaging diversity in undergraduate classrooms: A pedagogy for developing intercultural competence. ASHE Higher Education Report, 38(2). Nichols, K. P. (2011). Fostering intercultural competence through study abroad: A gender-based analysis of individual and program factors influencing development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Odgers, T., & Giroux, I. (2006). Internationalizing Faculty: A Phased Approach to Transforming Curriculum Design and Instruction. Paper presented at the York University’s International Conference on Internationalizing Canada’s Universities. Olson, C. L., & Kroeger, K. R. (2001). Global Competency and Intercultural Sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(2), 116–137. doi:10.1177/102831530152003 Onweuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1–21. Paige, M. R. (1993). On the nature of intercultural experiences and intercultural education. In M. R. Paige (Ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience (pp. 1–20). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Paige, R. M. (2003). The Intercultural Development Inventory: A critical review of the research literature. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 6, 53–61. Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, Y. A., & DeJaeghere, J. (2003). Assessing intercultural sensitivity: An empirical analysis of the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 467–486. Pedersen, P. (2009). Teaching towards an ethnorelative worldview through psychology study abroad. Intercultural Education, 20(sup1), 73–86. doi:10.1080/14675980903370896 85 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L.R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 Savicki, V. (2008). Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory, research, and application in international education. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Schoorman, D., & Bogotch, I. (2010). Moving beyond ‘diversity’ to ‘social justice’: The challenge to re-conceptualize multicultural education. Intercultural Education, 21(1), 79–85. doi:10.1080/14675980903491916 Schuerholz-Lehr, S. (2007). Teaching for global literacy in higher education: How prepared are the educators? Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(2), 180–204. doi:10.1177/1028315307299419 Seifert, T. A., Goodman, K., King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2010). Using mixed methods to study first year college impact on liberal arts learning outcomes. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(3), 248–267. doi:10.1177/1558689810374960 Shultz, L. (2011). Engaging the multiple discourses of global citizenship education within a Canadian university: Deliberation, contestation, and social justice possibilities. In L. Shultz, A. A. Abdi, & G. H. Richardson (Eds.), Global citizenship education in post-secondary institutions: Theories, practices, policies (pp. 13–24). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., van Larr, C., & Sears, D. O. (2008). The diversity challenge: Social identity and intergroup relations on the college campus. New York, N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation. Swanson, D. (2011). Parallaxes and paradoxes of global citizenship: Critical reflection and possibilities of praxis in/through an international online course. In L. Shultz, A. A. Abdi, & G. H. Richardson (Eds.), Global citizenship education in post-secondary institutions: Theories, practices, policies (pp. 120–139). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Teekens, H. (2003). The requirement to develop specific skills for teaching in an intercultural setting. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(1), 108–119. doi:10.1177/1028315302250192 Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating Across Cultures. New York: The Guilford Press. 86 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Ukpokodu, O. N. (2003). Teaching multicultural education from a critical perspective: Challenges and dilemmas. Multicultural Perspectives, 5(4), 17–23. doi:10.1207/ S15327892MCP0504_4 Universities Canada. (2014). Canada’s universities in the world: AUCC Internationalisation Survey. Ottawa, Canada: UNIVCAN. Retrieved August 30, 2016 from https:// www.univcan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/internationalization-survey-2014.pdf Vande Berg, M., Connor-Linton, J., & Paige, R. M. (2009). The Georgetown Consortium Project: Intervening in student learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 18, 1–75. Vande Berg, M., Paige, R. M., & Lou, K. H. (2012). Student learning abroad: What our students are learning, what they’re not, and what we can do about it. Sterling, VA: Sylus Publishing. Volet, S. E., & Ang, G. (1998). Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: An opportunity for inter-cultural learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 17(1), 5–23. doi:10.1080/0729436980170101 Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus group research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Culturally Diverse: Representation of a variety of cultural orientations, as in multicultural (see below). Ethnocentric: A monocultural orientation in which one’s own culture is predominant. Ethnorelative: An approach to cultural differences and similarities that engages multiple cultural orientations. Intercultural: Includes the representation and recognition of multicultural (see below) but moves beyond to be inclusive and interactive. Intercultural Learning: Learning between and across multiple cultural orientations. Intercultural Development: The development of worldviews that progress from monocultural to intercultural. Interdisciplinary: A disciplinary orientation that seeks to engage and collaborate between and across disciplinary worldviews. 87 Internationalization and Intercultural Learning Internationalization: Educational practices and policies that seek to engage globally, including cross-border education, educational mobility, transnational education, and internationalization at home. Multicultural: The representation and potential recognition of multiple cultures within a shared space. Multiple Perspectives Pedagogy: A teaching and learning paradigm that intentionally surfaces multiple views for reflective, introspective, and interactive learning. 88