Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
research-article2015
JSIXXX10.1177/1028315315587105Journal of Studies in International EducationOdağ et al.
Article
Journal of Studies in International Education
2016, Vol. 20(2) 118–139
Definition of Intercultural © 2015 European Association for
International Education
Competence According to Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Undergraduate Students DOI: 10.1177/1028315315587105
jsi.sagepub.com
at an International University
in Germany
Abstract
University graduates are required to possess intercultural competence in addition
to strong academic skills in today’s globalized world. Although such competence
has been defined in various theoretical models by intercultural scholars, it remains
unknown how the recipients of higher education (the students) define this concept.
A total of 130 undergraduate university students (from Western and non-Western
cultures), living on a multicultural campus, provided short qualitative responses to
a written question on how they define intercultural competence. According to a
qualitative content analysis, the students defined intercultural competence in terms
of interaction, communication, and cultural harmony. Unlike intercultural scholars,
the students placed more emphasis on the understanding and awareness of other
cultures rather than focusing on their own culture. It appears that young university
students from multicultural backgrounds consider tolerance and collective harmony
as the most important components of intercultural competence in their initial stages
of intercultural development.
Keywords
cross-cultural competence, multicultural education, university education, international
education, content analysis
Corresponding Author:
Özen Odağ, Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences (BIGSSS), Jacobs University
Bremen, Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany.
Email: o.odag@jacobs-university.de
Odağ et al. 119
Background
While it is important that universities and other tertiary educational institutions con-
tinue to promote the development of academic and professional skills, the additional
fundamental need for interculturally competent graduates has emerged in the era of
globalization. Accordingly, universities need to “educate their students for global citi-
zenship, to keep pace with their peers, to better serve the national and international
community” (Biddle, 2002, p. 7) and “produce global competence, or a sense of civic
responsibility that extends beyond the local or even national level” (Rumbley, Altbach,
& Reisberg, 2012, p. 15). On the individual level, global (intercultural) competence
goes hand in hand with employability on the international job market, along with
increased job performance and personal development (Deardorff, de Wit, & Heyl,
2012; Deardorff & van Gaalen, 2012; Knight, 2012; Rumbley et al., 2012).
Surprisingly, although defined as an important outcome of internationalization
efforts in higher education (Knight, 2004), a uniform definition of what it means to be
“interculturally competent” does not exist. Instead, synonyms such as “multicultural
competence,” “cross-cultural awareness,” “global competence,” and “intercultural
sensitivity” frequently appear in the academic literature to describe this concept
(Fantini, 2009, p. 457). The term intercultural competence is also often used inter-
changeably with “intercultural communication” or “intercultural communicative com-
petence” although the latter two terms focus specifically on communication and
linguistic awareness aspects of intercultural competence (Krajewski, 2011, p. 12).
However, “assuming that intercultural competence is a skill, it should be possible to
assess it and to document its existence and progress” (Krajewski, 2011, p. 13), possi-
bly beyond the communication element. Furthermore, if university graduates are
required to possess “intercultural competence,” then a comprehensive and parsimoni-
ous theoretical model of this concept should be developed (Deardorff & Jones, 2012;
Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009).
Already developed models suggest that while “conceptualizations of intercultural
competence are highly diverse in their disciplines, terminologies, and scholarly and
practical objectives” (for review, see Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009, p. 5), some com-
mon denominators like motivation, knowledge, skills, outcomes, and context appear in
the majority of them. In addition, the concept adaptability appears in nearly all con-
ceptualizations, though the term as yet lacks both conceptual and empirical clarity and
validation (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). Of the plethora of available models, the
present study utilizes the following three models which focus on conceptualizing
intercultural competence with respect to the elements mentioned above: a composi-
tional model (Stier, 2006), a developmental model (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005),
and a model with compositional and developmental elements developed following an
empirical study (Deardorff, 2006). In general, these models were selected due to their
focus on conceptualizing intercultural competence with respect to elements common
to most models reviewed by Spitzberg and Changnon (2009), such as motivation,
knowledge, skills, and outcomes. Other prominent models in the literature (such as
Fantini, 1995, or Byram, 1997) are not considered here, due to their emphasis on other
120 Journal of Studies in International Education 20(2)
While the previous two models are largely theory based, Deardorff’s (2006)
Pyramid and Process Model of Intercultural Competence is based on data from an
empirical study. The study enquired how intercultural competence as a student out-
come was addressed in 73 higher education institutions in the United States using
questionnaire responses from 24 administrators. The subsequent Delphi study was
used to form a consensus among a group of 23 internationally known intercultural
scholars (mostly from the United States) who anonymously provided, rated, and
accepted or rejected elements and components of intercultural competence (the schol-
ars’ names were revealed only at the end of the study to reduce respondent bias;
Deardorff, 2006, Table 1). A consensus definition of intercultural competence was
developed based on elements with 80% to 100% agreement among scholars. In the
final phase of the study, the scholars and administrators were also asked to accept or
reject each element with 80% to 100% agreement among scholars. The final definition
comprised 7 elements and 22 components of intercultural competence with the highest
acceptance rates (see Table 1 based on Deardorff, 2006, Table 2).
A number of parallels exist among the definitions provided by the scholars in
Deardorff’s (2006; Table 1) study and the two theoretical models of intercultural
Odağ et al. 121
Table 1. Elements and Components of Intercultural Competence Based on 80% to 100%
Agreement Among Intercultural Scholars (Deardorff, 2006).
Table 2. Pyramid and Process Model of Intercultural Competence According to Deardorff
(2006).
competence described above (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005; Stier, 2006). Specifically,
the most accepted definition of intercultural competence was the “ability to communi-
cate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural
knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (Table 1; Deardorff, 2006, Table 2, p. 249). This defi-
nition closely resembles the final level of development in the Developmental Model of
Intercultural Maturity that requires engaging in relationships with diverse others (King
& Baxter Magolda, 2005).
The second important definition lists important trait elements of intercultural
competence in terms of “the ability to shift frame of reference appropriately and
adapt behavior to cultural context; adaptability, expandability, and flexibility of
one’s frame of reference/filter” (Table 1; Deardorff, 2006, Table 2, p. 249). Such
alteration of perspective/shift in reference frame is noted in both the Developmental
Model of Intercultural Maturity (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005) and Stier’s (2006)
model.
The only component of intercultural competence with 100% acceptance among the
scholars was “understanding others’ worldviews” (Table 1; Deardorff, 2006, Table 2,
Odağ et al. 123
mentioned above, Krajewski did not assess student definitions of intercultural compe-
tence with as open a methodology as she assessed expert definitions. It is unclear, there-
fore, whether the findings yield genuine student opinions or opinions that are affected
by expert statements. Krajewski conducts a more open focus group study with students,
to remedy this uncertainty, but this study, on the contrary, is based on a sample of six
students only, and a systematic analysis of the focus group data is missing.
In other studies, domestic students studying in Australia and international students
studying in Hong Kong identified three dominant components that describe what it
means to be interculturally competent (Leask, 2010, p. 6 f.): (a) “understanding the
world out there” (in the sense of understanding both other cultures and one’s own
culture through personal experience and interaction), (b) “openness and respect for
cultural difference” (in the sense of nonjudgmental and undiscriminating attitudes
toward people from different cultures), and (c) “working effectively across cultures”
(in the sense of communicating and working successfully across cultures in the busi-
ness context). In a similar vein, in their focus group and interview study at two univer-
sities in Southwest England, Harrison and Peacock (2010) identify benefits and
challenges of intercultural encounters between home and international students from
the perspective of the students themselves. The ability of thinking up new ideas and
looking at topics from different angles were mentioned as the most beneficial aspects
of intercultural encounters in the educational setting. Seating segregation, lack of
mutual commitment to group work, and English language barriers were mentioned
among the challenges of intercultural encounters. In addition, students pointed to their
difficulties of being “mindful” (Harrison & Peacock, 2010, p. 135) and open to stu-
dents from different cultural backgrounds, finding it hard to use the right words when
interacting with them and being aware of the dangers of stereotyping international
students in the educational setting. Their responses implied that intercultural compe-
tence in educational settings requires a substantial level of self-monitoring and sanc-
tioning of prejudice and discrimination.
Taken together, the various components students mentioned so far in relation to the
concept of intercultural competence resonate mostly attitudinal components of inter-
cultural competence such as openness and respect (in line with the bottom tier of
Deardorff’s Pyramid and Process Model, 2006), knowledge and comprehension of
one’s own, but especially of other cultures (in line with the second tier of Deardorff’s
Pyramid and Process Model), and effective cross-cultural interaction, communication,
and adaptation on a behavioral level (in line with the top tier in Deardorff’s Pyramid
and Process Model: “desired external outcome,” p. 254).
The following study was designed to assess the understanding of intercultural com-
petence in undergraduate university students. Specific aims of the present study were
as follows:
Both of these aims were based on a methodology that is open enough to capture
genuine student definitions, yet broad enough to capture a high number of definitions
(see “Method” section). The sample for the present study was selected from under-
graduate students at Jacobs University Bremen, Germany, which is a private, interna-
tional university with English as the language of instruction. There are approximately
1,300 students enrolled at Jacobs University with 25% German students and 75% of
students from more than 100 nations. Connected to this high level of diversity in the
student body is the explicit mission of Jacobs University to educate “leaders of tomor-
row” who will tackle global challenges and provide innovative solutions to the com-
plex problems of our contemporary world through a transdisciplinary, academic
approach (see http://jacobs-university.de/mission). Jacobs University thus represents
an exemplary institution of private higher education with a strong internationalization
mission, fitting well into the “global landscape of higher education” depicted by
Deardorff and colleagues (2012, p. 457). Most importantly, because Jacobs University
students live and study in a state of constant cultural exchange on a small residential
campus, they constitute an ideal population in which to study intercultural competence
in a higher education setting.
Method
Participants
A total of 136 undergraduate students participated in the present study early February
2013, following a written informed consent. Participants were sampled purposefully
along two criteria: They had to be (a) first-year undergraduate students in the begin-
ning of their second semester of studies at Jacobs University Bremen and who (b) had
fully completed the Dive Into Diversity intercultural peer-training workshop1 in
August 2012. The workshop explicitly dealt with the practical implications of intercul-
tural competence (in terms of living and learning on a multicultural campus) rather
than with an academic definition of this concept. This sampling strategy homogenized
the sample, as differences in the length of time spent on living and studying in the
intercultural environment at Jacobs University could have created an unnecessary con-
found in the responses of the participants. It needs to be noted that the unique student
recruitment strategy and environment at Jacobs University explained above did not
allow us to distinguish between typical “domestic” and “international” students in our
sample. Thus, we refer to our sample as “undergraduate university students” of any
cultural background.
Questionnaire
Data were collected by means of a self-devised pen-and-paper questionnaire compris-
ing 47 closed-ended questions on a 5-point Likert-type scale, 1 open-ended question,
and 12 demographic questions. The questionnaire was written and administered in
English (the main language of instruction on our campus). The questions were
Odağ et al. 127
developed based on the interview guide used to qualitatively assess the effectiveness
of the intercultural peer-training at our university (Binder, Schreier, Kühnen, &
Kedzior, 2013). This study zooms in on the responses to the open-ended question of
the questionnaire (Q1): Please describe in your own words, what “intercultural com-
petence” means to you. By phrasing this open question, we aimed at capturing genuine
student definitions (see above). The responses to the quantitative questions were ana-
lyzed for the purposes of another study.
Data Collection
The questionnaire was pretested with three students to ensure that they comprehended
the questions. Once this was confirmed, the questionnaire was administered during
class time of four large undergraduate courses in February 2013 at Jacobs University
(corresponding to the first week of the second semester of studies and 6 months after
the intercultural peer-training). Participants received course credit for taking part in
this study.
Data Analysis
The qualitative data were index coded in line with Coffey and Atkinson (1996) and
content analyzed according to guidelines by Schreier (2012). The indexical coding
(developed based on models by Deardorff, 2006, and Stier, 2006) was used on the
surface level prior to the content analysis to identify the general topic of each defini-
tion of intercultural competence provided by students. Once the topic was identified,
content analysis (also based on Deardorff, 2006, and Stier, 2006) focused at a deeper
level on the specific subcategories that students described about these topics (Table 3).
Most subcategories were developed deductively in this content analysis; Table 3 dis-
plays the majority of deductive along with the few inductive subcategories of the cod-
ing scheme.
The rationale behind subcategory development and the details of the coding frame
are shown in the supplementary appendix to this article (Tables A1-A6). The interrater
agreement was high for indexical coding and the content analysis (Supplementary
Appendix Tables A7 and A8). Furthermore, the substantive categories on the whole
were able to fully encompass the various meanings of the units of coding because only
4% of segments were classified as miscellaneous (Supplementary Appendix Table A9).
Results
Due to missing responses to the open-ended question of the survey (Q1), only the data
of 130 out of the 136 participants were included in the current analysis. This sample
represents 47% of all first-year students (n = 277) at Jacobs University in February
2013.
The participants were on average 19 years old (17-23 years old), mostly female
(62%), and enrolled in study majors in the humanities and social sciences (51%) or
128 Journal of Studies in International Education 20(2)
Table 3. Final Subcategories of the Coding Frame Used in the Current Content Analysis.
Note. Percentage scores exceed 100% because multiple responses from the same participants were
coded into more than one index code.
Discussion
The definitions of intercultural competence provided by young undergraduate students
in the present study were mostly in line with both the definitions of intercultural com-
petence that received the most consensus from the intercultural scholars in Deardorff’s
Delphi study (“the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercul-
tural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes”;
Deardorff, 2006, p. 249) and the components of intercultural competence identified by
students in the studies by Krajewski (2011) and Jones (2010). Specifically, the under-
graduate university students at Jacobs University describe intercultural competence in
terms of External Outcomes (interaction, communication, intercultural harmony),
Attitudes (tolerance/acceptance, respect, openness), and Knowledge (intercultural
awareness, understanding of other’s worldviews, culture-specific knowledge). Thus,
the External Outcomes, Knowledge, and Attitudes dimensions (Deardorff, 2006) were
given a similar level of importance in the present as well as the aforementioned
studies.
Additional agreement with other studies (Deardorff, 2006; Jones, 2010; Krajewski,
2011) is also evident through the high frequency of Jacobs University students who
included effective and appropriate communication or effective and appropriate inter-
action in their responses (similar to Deardorff’s components of intercultural compe-
tence on the “External Outcomes” dimension; Deardorff, 2006, p. 254). These desired
external outcomes seem to allow the undergraduate students to navigate the extent of
interculturality in their highly international academic and residential environment on
Jacobs University’s campus.
Furthermore, many students indicated that an essential part of intercultural compe-
tence is the ability to understand other’s worldviews (representing the “Knowledge”
dimension of Deardorff’s Pyramid and Process Model, 2006, pp. 254, 256) and (to a
lesser extent) to adapt to cultural differences (representing the “Internal Outcomes”
dimension in the Pyramid and in line with results of Krajewski, 2011). By contrast, the
acquisition of interpersonal skills (such as observation, listening, and interactive learn-
ing located on the “Skills” dimension in the Pyramid) hardly played any role in the
students’ responses in our study.
Odağ et al. 131
term tolerance is placed in the Pyramid and Process Model again under the attitude
dimension “curiosity and discovery” and referred to as “ambiguity tolerance,” that is,
the ability to accept things that are not immediately understood (Deardorff, 2006).
The fact that tolerance is placed on the most foundational, bottom tier of Deardorff’s
(2006) Pyramid and Process Model suggests that in their definitions of intercultural
competence students in our and other studies (Jones, 2010; Krajewski, 2011) stress the
most fundamental aspect of intercultural competence, while rarely focusing on com-
ponents on the upper levels of Deardorff’s model. Arguably therefore, their responses
appear as less comprehensive in scope compared with those of the intercultural experts
in studies by Deardorff (2006), and Krajewski (2011). However, the conceptualization
of intercultural competence on this foundational developmental stage cannot be inter-
preted as less valid or developmentally less advanced compared with the expert defini-
tions, for two reasons in particular. First, Byram (1997) denotes openness and respect
as attitudes serving as an entry point into intercultural understanding. Similarly, the
American Council on International Intercultural Education (1996) proposes a four-
stage model for the development of global competence, in which the first stage centers
on openness to other cultures, values, and attitudes. This first stage, they argue, is most
important to global competence, and the most crucial entry ticket into more advanced
forms thereof. It can be concluded, therefore, that the students of the present study (in
line with students in other studies) emphasize a level of intercultural competence that
is highly fundamental to a further development and acquisition of intercultural compe-
tence. Certainly, such fundamental responses are to be expected based on the demo-
graphics of our sample: The participants were on average 19 years old, only in the first
year of university degree, for most the first time away from their family and abroad
outside of their home country. It is thus not surprising, that their definitions of inter-
cultural competence are derived from more foundational stages of intercultural under-
standing. In addition, it is likely that aspects of intercultural competence defined by
these students as important would change over time as they acquire more intercultural
experience. Such development could be tested longitudinally in the same participants
but was beyond the scope of the present study.
Second, it can be assumed that in their definitions of intercultural competence (in
contrast to the intercultural experts in Deardorff (2006) and Krajewski (2011), but in
line with students in Krajewski and Jones (2010)) our students place an emphasis on
essential practical aspects of “intercultural competence” needed to successfully deal
with academic and social life on a multicultural campus in the beginning of their uni-
versity studies. It should be noted that even though the two studies used entirely dif-
ferent methodologies, both our own and Krajewski’s study yielded a similar difference
between scholar and student definitions, with students stressing the said fundamental
practical aspects of getting by with people from other cultures, and scholars drawing a
more comprehensive picture. The opinion of the students in our study may thus indeed
be similar to that of other students of similar age studying outside their home countries
(and even to that of older employees who complete their first work assignments
abroad), representing a more applied version of intercultural competence. Needless to
say, this applied understanding may differ from a more comprehensive definition of
Odağ et al. 133
Limitations
Although the methods of data collection and analysis were supported by sufficient qual-
ity checks, resulting in information that was both reliable and valid, some limitations in
the method of data collection could have potentially influenced the quality and the con-
tent of student definitions of intercultural competence. First, because the questionnaires
were distributed during class time, it is possible that students did not provide as thorough
definitions as if this questionnaire had been administered in a setting with more time to
focus on the individual definitions. This threat to the validity of the data is evident in
particular answers (such as one word answers) that imply limited effort in answering the
question. Furthermore, the majority of definitions provided were both conceptually
broad and textually concise. This creates difficulty in the interpretation of the data
because there is little contextual information to draw on when making decisions about
meaning, particularly in case of polysemous words such as “coping.” It is likely that
some elements of intercultural competence require a deeper level of explanation that was
not solicited in the one-to-two sentence responses of the majority of the participants in
our study. However, the strength of our open-ended question used to assess the meaning
of intercultural competence (Please describe in your own words, what “intercultural
competence” means to you.) was that it allowed the respondents to define this concept
according to their own definition without the assumption that a valid and reliable defini-
tion already exists and that intercultural competence can be measured. In this, our study
was more open to students’ genuine own understanding of intercultural competence, in
contrast to, for example, Krajewski’s (2011) survey method that confronted students
with already existing statements about intercultural competence. At the same time, in
line with Krajewski (2011), our study retained the breadth of student opinions by using
survey methodology. Second, because English was a second language for the majority of
participants, it is likely that some responses were limited/incorrect due to linguistic limi-
tations rather than inability to accurately define the intercultural competence. However,
a low miscellaneous rate and the fact that English is the official language of instruction
at our institution suggest that any linguistic barriers did not systematically affect the cur-
rent results. Third, as the analyzed definitions in the present study were drawn from
first-year undergraduate students, it is possible that intercultural competence could hold
a different intrinsic meaning for more senior students. In our daily interactions with stu-
dents, both in the classroom and in the social context, it is evident that students on our
small campus develop interculturally over time and change not only their external
behavior but also internal values and beliefs. However, measuring such a development
over time was beyond the scope of this study. It is also evident that our campus does not
represent a typical university campus with “domestic” and “international” students.
Thus, the opinions of our students may differ from those on more traditional campuses
and be more representative of how young staff at large international companies perceive
intercultural competence. Fourth, based on the choice of models, not all aspects of inter-
cultural competence were investigated in this study. For example, our study does not
address the relational element of intercultural competence, such as belonging, which
fosters positive relations and active reflection. Finally, our study assessed the definitions
Odağ et al. 135
Conclusion
According to this study, undergraduate university students defined intercultural com-
petence in terms of understanding worldviews of others and being able to effectively
communicate and interact with people from other cultures. Unlike the intercultural
scholars, the students placed less emphasis on cultural self-reflection, cultural self-
awareness, and skills. Instead, tolerance and lack of prejudice are important compo-
nents identified by young university students (from Western and non-Western cultures)
at the foundational stages of intercultural development. Thus, universities could
expand and improve their internationalization efforts by nurturing intercultural toler-
ance and collective harmony in accordance with societal principles of collectivistic
cultures in the non-Western world. University graduates should be equipped with such
intercultural competence skills to successfully work in a diverse and mutually depen-
dent world.
Acknowledgments
We thank Wiebke Röhrs for her assistance with developing the questionnaire and data collec-
tion and Robin Wallin for her assistance with data rating to compute the interrater agreement.
We also thank our colleagues at Jacobs University Bremen (Drs. Illenberger and Maubach, and
Professors Wilhelm and Boehnke) for permission to collect data in their undergraduate courses.
Finally, we acknowledge and thank our students for taking part in the study.
Author Contributions
Ö.O. and K.K.K. conceptualized and designed the study. All authors developed the question-
naire; H.R.W. and K.K.K. collected the data; H.R.W. and Ö.O. analyzed the data; H.R.W. wrote
the first draft of the manuscript; Ö.O. and K.K.K. revised the manuscript.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Odağ et al. 137
Note
1. The Dive Into Diversity peer-training is a day-long, mandatory workshop for all incom-
ing students at Jacobs University offered during the orientation period (late August every
year). The aim of the training is to facilitate the integration of all students into the social
and academic life at Jacobs University (Binder, Schreier, Kühnen, & Kedzior, 2013).
References
American Council on International Intercultural Education. (1996). Educating for the global
community: A framework for community colleges (Conference report). Retrieved from
http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/publications/archive/CC2.pdf
Biddle, S. (2002). Internationalization: Rhetoric or reality? New York, NY: American Council
of Learned Societies.
Binder, N., Schreier, M., Kühnen, U., & Kedzior, K. (2013). Integrating international stu-
dents into tertiary education using intercultural peer-to-peer training at Jacobs University
Bremen, Germany. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1, 273-285.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and schol-
arship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.
1083-6101.2007.00393
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Chen, G.-M., & An, R. (2009). A Chinese model of intercultural leadership competence. In D.
K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 196-207). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Concepts and coding. In A. Coffey & P. Atkinson (Eds.),
Making sense of qualitative data (pp. 26-53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a stu-
dent outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10,
241-266. doi:10.1177/1028315306287002
Deardorff, D. K., de Wit, H., & Heyl, J. D. (2012). Bridges to the future: The global landscape of
international higher education. In D. K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. D. Heyl, & T. Adams (Eds.),
The SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 457-485). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Deardorff, D. K., & Jones, E. (2012). Intercultural competence: An emerging focus in interna-
tional higher education. In D. K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. D. Heyl & T. Adams (Eds.), The
SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 283-303). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Deardorff, D. K., & van Gaalen, A. (2012). Outcomes assessment in the internationalization of
higher education. In D. K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. D. Heyl, & T. Adams (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of international higher education (pp. 167-187). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Fantini, A. E. (1995). Language, culture, and worldview: Exploring the nexus. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19, 143-153. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(95)00025-7
Fantini, A. E. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.),
The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 456-476). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2002). Cross-cultural communication theories. In W. B.
Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication
(pp. 25-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harrison, N., & Peacock, N. N. (2010). Interactions in the international classroom: The UK
perspective. In E. Jones (Ed.), Internationalisation and the student voice: Higher education
perspectives (pp. 125-142). New York, NY: Routledge.
138 Journal of Studies in International Education 20(2)
Author Biographies
Özen Odağ completed her PhD in media psychology (in 2007) and is the coordinator of the
Methods Center of the Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences. She is also a
lecturer in empirical methods at Jacobs University Bremen, Germany. She teaches research-led
qualitative and mixed-methods courses as well as courses in social psychology.
Odağ et al. 139
Hannah R. Wallin completed her BA in integrated social and cognitive psychology at Jacobs
University Bremen, Germany, in June 2013. This study is based on her bachelor’s thesis (sub-
mitted in April 2013) under the supervision of Drs. Odag and Kedzior.
Karina K. Kedzior completed her PhD in science at the University of Western Australia, Perth,
Australia, in 2004. She is currently a professor of statistics and research methods in psychology
at the University of Bremen, Germany. She has become interested in intercultural competence
based on her experiences in teaching of multicultural students at Jacobs University. She is a
coauthor on the study evaluating the peer-training in intercultural competence at Jacobs
University Bremen (Binder, Schreier, Kühnen, & Kedzior, 2013).