Intercultural Sensitivity and Target Language Performance among Overseas Filipino Workers

A Paper Proposal

Presented to the Faculty of the College of Graduate Studies and Teacher Education Research

Philippine Normal University

In partial fulfilment of the Requirements for

ELE 701—Second Language Acquisition Class of

Dr. Arceli Amarles

Marc Ivan J. Paleracio

MA-ELE

April 2019

1
 Chapter 1

The Problem and Literature Review

Background of the Study

A cornerstone of language acquisition studies is the understanding of not only internal factors—

along the lines of intrinsic motivation, physiological, and psychological dispositions among other; but

external ones as well. Among the plethora of external factors that fundamentally affect the acquisition of

any target language is culture. The difference between the culture of the language learner and the target

language’s culture affiliate may prove to impede or promote proficiency to any language.

As Gkonou and Oxford (2018) puts it, culture and language form a tightly woven tapestry, rich

with vibrant colors, shadows, and highlights. When an individual is learning culture and language, the

tapestry also includes learning strategies, that is, conscious, learner-regulated thoughts and actions for

developing specific skills and general proficiency. Language is a system involving complex communication,

either spoken or written, to express ideas and feelings. Pragmatics, or the appropriate use of a language

in situational contexts, is the nexus of language and culture.

Much study on the dynamic relationship between culture, language, and education in general

have been made. Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies on the specific effects of cultural constructs to

language learning have gained much attention over the years. In this paper, however, the focus would be

on intercultural sensitivity as an impactful concept to the acquisition of language. By definition,

intercultural sensitivity is the consciousness and understanding of the morals, standards, and principles

of a specific culture, society, ethnic group or race, joined by a motivation to acclimate to one's actions

with such.

2
 Bennet (2011) introduced the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) a

grounded theory based on constructivist perception and communication theory. It assumes that the

experience of reality is constructed through perception, and that more complex perceptual categories

yield more complex (sophisticated) experience. Specifically, the DMIS assumes that we are constructing

boundaries of “self” and “other” in ways that guide our experience of intercultural events. The most

ethnocentric construction, Denial, is one wherein only vague categories of “other” are available for

perceiving people from different cultural contexts. At the other end of the continuum, the most

ethnorelative construction of Integration supposes that complex self/other categories are incorporated

into one's personal identity and into decision-making regarding ethicality in multicultural relations.

This model was created as a basic outline to explain the reactions that people have to cultural

differences. The stages of DMIS is a continuum that ranges from ethnocentric to highly ethnorelative. The

DMIS was designed by the theory that cultural awareness is accompanied by improved cognitive

sophistication (Cushner, McClelland, & Safford, 2012). This model is acceptable for both children and

adults as they progress through cross-cultural sensitivity. The stage classification from the DMIS of the

participants, which is fundamental in this paper, are juxtaposed with the level of language performance

of the participants of the study to determine the relation of intercultural sensitivity to target language

proficiency.

The rise of Filipino workers who seek employment overseas is met with the rise for the demand

of target language/ second language training. This case can be exemplified by Overseas Filipino workers

who wish to work in Japan, for instance. Passing the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) is a

requisite for employment in Japan. The JLPT is a standardized criterion-referenced test to evaluate and

certify Japanese language proficiency for non-native speakers, covering language knowledge, reading

ability, and listening ability. The test is held twice a year in Japan and selected countries (on the first

Sunday of July and December), and once a year in other regions (on the first Sunday of December). The

3
JLPT consists of five levels. Until 2009, the test had four levels, with 4 being the lowest and 1 being the

highest level of certification. Moreover, in order to take the test, one must have undergone

Japanese/Nihongo formal instruction from accredited agencies. The language program usually takes three

(3) months to cover the basics. Recent statistics show that roughly 128,000 OFWs are in Japan comprising

19.7 percent of the foreign workers. This makes Filipinos as the third largest foreign labor force nationality

of the Asian country.

The existence of intercultural difference and sensitivity among learners of a new language

demand for further study as the success of target language proficiency might be influenced by the

learner’s preconceived notions about the target language’s culture affiliate and language itself.

Coincidentally, this is a dilemma constantly being faced by Overseas Filipino Workers. Their sensitivity to

the target culture’s difference to their own play a significant role in their target language performance—

a concept which is explored in this paper. Learning a new language is a challenging matter especially if the

learner is under an ethnocentric cultural sensitivity level as opposed to one who is more ethnorelative.

Literature Review

Key to the study of the relationship of intercultural sensitivity and target language proficiency is

the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. The DMIS consists of 6 different stages. These stages

include denial, defense, minimization, acceptance, adaptation, and integration (Cushner, McClelland, &

Safford, 2012). Each stage describes a cognitive structure that is communicated through attitudes and

behaviors (Bennett, 2011). In the pedagogical sense, teachers can use the DMIS to facilitate learning by

recognizing the cognitive stage a student is at and helping the student progress into the next stage.

4
 As (Bennett, 2011) puts it, the DMIS stages (positions) are construed both in terms of

basic perceptual structures vis a vis otherness and in terms of certain “issues” regarding cultural difference

that tend to be related to each of the stages. The names of the stages refer to the issues, while the

description of the experience of each stage refers to its perceptual structure. The first three stages of

Denial, Defense, and Minimization are Ethnocentric; they refer to issues that are associated with

experiencing one’s own culture as more “central to reality.” The last three stages of Acceptance,

Adaptation, and Integration are Ethnorelative; they refer to issues associated with experiencing all

cultures as alternative ways of organizing reality. Movement through the stages is not inevitable; it

depends on the need to become more competent in communicating outside one’s primary social context.

When that need is established, it is addressed by building more complex perceptual structures that can

resolve the increasingly complex issues of dealing with cultural difference.

The DMIS is a culture-general model; when more complex perceptual structures are established

for any culture, they apply to all cultures. For instance, greater perceptual sensitivity towards a different

national culture group allows more sensitivity towards a different generational or sexual orientation

group, assuming that those groups are also defined in cultural terms. Additionally, movement through the

stages tends to be one-way; people do not easily become more ethnocentric after having developed

ethnorelative perceptual structures. However, people can rather easily retreat from one ethnocentric

stage to an earlier one, particularly from Minimization to Defense.

In addition to its use as an individual diagnostic, the DMIS can be interpreted at an organizational

level. More complex organizational structures are parallels to more complex personal perceptual

structures. Greater intercultural sensitivity in an organization means that more complex structures are

allowing cultural difference to be perceived more fully. The resulting climate regarding cultural difference

carries the potential for better resolution of the issues associated with multicultural workforces and global

5
operations. This dynamic shows how the DMIS can be applied for different constructs even at the level of

language acquisition.

On a similar vein, other studies which ground this paper involve the interrelation of language

acquisition/learning and culture and other sociological contexts in general. Duff (2019), explains that

social aspects of second language acquisition (SLA) and the contexts in which people attempt to learn and

use languages and seek to become integrated within new and changing cultures have been examined for

decades from various theoretical perspectives (e.g., Atkinson, 2011; Batstone, 2010; Block, 2003; Duff,

2017). To state the obvious, there can be no learning—or human existence—in a contextual vacuum. The

social dynamics of learning have been foregrounded in SLA with the use of such phrases as the social turn,

sociocultural theory, socialization, (social) identity, social class, (social) power, social cognition, (social)

interaction, social networks, (social) ecology, and (social) context (among others), drawing on numerous

different, yet often intersecting, theoretical frameworks. Context, sometimes a proxy term for social,

environmental, or ecological aspects of language experience, refers not only to immediate contexts of

language experience but also to distributed transnational ties, networks, and imaginaries, as well as

histories. Of course, not all aspects or levels of context are directly or deeply relevant to all SLA processes

or may be consciously attended to by learners. The cultural context, in this sense, may be directly or

indirectly relevant to SLA with a greater leaning to the former.

The concept of language performance or, more technically, linguistic performance is also core to

this study. By definition, linguistic performance was used by Noam Chomsky in 1960 to describe "the

actual use of language in concrete situations". It is used to describe both the production, sometimes called

parole, as well as the comprehension of language. Performance is defined in opposition to "competence";

the latter describes the mental knowledge that a speaker or listener has of language.

6
 Part of the motivation for the distinction between performance and competence comes from

speech errors: despite having a perfect understanding of the correct forms, a speaker of a language may

unintentionally produce incorrect forms. This is because performance occurs in real situations, and so is

subject to many non-linguistic influences. For example, distractions or memory limitations can affect

lexical retrieval (Chomsky 1965), and give rise to errors in both production and perception or distractions.

Such non-linguistic factors are completely independent of the actual knowledge of language, and establish

that speakers' knowledge of language (their competence) is distinct from their actual use of language

(their performance). Within this context, the language performance of the learners is associated with their

target language proficiency test results.

Furthermore, this study will intertwine the juxtaposed results of the language learner’s

intercultural sensitivity level and their target language performance to pedagogical implications anchored

on strategy instruction. Strategy instruction usually involves finding out students’ current learning

strategies, choosing a new strategy (or a combination of strategies) that students need the most for

current tasks, demonstrating and naming the strategy for the students, explaining why it is helpful, asking

students to try out the strategy in an authentic task, asking students to decide how useful the strategy

was, and reminding students to use it again (i.e., transfer it to new, relevant tasks). This pattern is

sometimes called fully informed, overt strategy instruction, because the teacher gives learners full

information about the strategy. Teachers can adapt this sequence to create simple, organic steps to meet

students’ needs. Sometimes strategy instruction is rapidly offered to one or two learners, rather than a

whole class. Chamot (2018) recommended differentiating strategy instruction to meet students’ needs

based on diversity in cultural, socioeconomic, and educational background; personality factors;

motivation and willingness; target language proficiency level; and strategy knowledge. Not every learning

strategy will work for every learner. Psaltou-Joycey and Gavriilidou (2015), and Cohen (2014) created

teachers’ guides taking into consideration many crucial factors for tailoring strategy instruction to

7
learners’ individual and group needs. All of these concepts are fundamental to establishing the case of

this study.

Conceptual Framework/Theoretical Framework

Intercultural Language Learner’s

Sensitivity Level of Target Language
Language Learner Performance as
reflected by their
Based on the
Language Proficiency
Developmental
Test results
Model of
Intercultural
Sensitivity

(Bennett, 2004)

Analysis and
Interpretation

Implications to Target Language Performance

and Language Learning

Identification of Pedagogical Strategies Fit for Language

Learners with Varied Intercultural Sensitivity Levels

Research Problems and Hypotheses

The main problems to be answered by the study are as follows:

1. Is there a correlation between a language learner’s intercultural sensitivity level and target language

performance?

2. Is there a significant difference between the target language performance of learners with an identified

ethnocentric cultural sensitivity and one who is identified with an ethnorelative cultural sensitivity?

3. Which pedagogical strategies would work best for language learners with a variety of intercultural

sensitivity level?

8
 The main hypothesis of this study is that there is a significant correlation between a language

learners’ intercultural sensitivity level and their target language performance. Furthermore, this study

accepts the feasibility of specific pedagogical strategies that would fit best to either an ethnocentric or

ethnorelative language learner.

Scope and Limitations

This study will only deal with the identification of its participants’ level of intercultural sensitivity

as suggested in the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. Furthermore, it will also be limited

to the collection of data of the participants’ language performance as reflected by their target language

proficiency test results. The participants of the study will only be limited to overseas Filipino workers

based in Japan who have undergone formal Japanese language training for at least three (3) months and

who has been working in Japan for at least one (1) month.

Definition of Terms

Cultural Sensitivity- consciousness and understanding of the morals, standards, and principles of

a specific culture, society, ethnic group or race, joined by a motivation to acclimate to one's actions with

such.

Language Performance/ Linguistic Performance- the actual use of language in concrete

situations". It is used to describe both the production, sometimes called parole, as well as the

comprehension of language.

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)- This model was created as a basic

outline to explain the reactions that people have to cultural differences. The DMIS consists of 6 different

stages. These stages include denial, defense, minimization, acceptance, adaptation, and integration. The

first three belonging to ethnocentric views while the remaining three are considered ethnorelative levels.

9
 Chapter 2

Methods

Research Design

This descriptive-quantitative study will involve the identification of the participants’ intercultural

sensitivity level and their target language performance.

Sampling and Participants

The participants of the study will be overseas Filipino workers based in Japan who have undergone

formal Japanese language training for at least three (3) months and who has been working in Japan for at

least one (1) month. The participants will be made to answer two questionnaires – one adapted from the

DMIS scale to identify their intercultural sensitivity level and another to gather information on their target

language performance.

Instruments

This study will adapt the instrument of the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity to

identify the intercultural sensitivity level of the target learners. While a descriptive survey questionnaire

would be used to gather the information regarding the language performance of the participants as

reflected in their language proficiency test results, in this case, the Japanese Language Proficiency Test.

The questionnaire will also gather other pertinent information on language proficiency of the OFW

participants.

Data Gathering Procedure

The data gathering procedure will begin with the distribution of the two research instruments to

the target participants. The instruments will be forwarded to the researchers contact in Japan and the

contact will be the one to have the instruments answered by the target twenty (20) respondents. The

10
answered questionnaires will be couriered back to the researcher for analysis and interpretation. An

alternative data gathering procedure would be the use of Google forms to be answered electronically for

easier data collection.

Data Analysis

The results of the DMIS-based instrument to gauge the intercultural sensitivity level of the

participants will be juxtaposed with the results of the language performance-based instrument to yield

the correlation of the two variables.

Potential Ethical Issues

Potential ethical issues which might be faced by this study would include the unreliability of the

participants’ responses and possible misuse of the information gathered for this research.

11
Appendix

Bennett, Milton. (2017). Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.

Bennett, M. J. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J.S. Wurzel (Ed.) Toward multiculturalism:

A reader in multicultural education. Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation. (Originally

published in The diversity symposium proceedings: An interim step toward a conceptual framework for

the practice of diversity. Waltham, MA: Bentley College, 2002). Additional information at

www.idrinstitute.org

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity

(revised). In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience. Yarmouth, Me: Intercultural

Press.

Duff, P. A. (2019). Social Dimensions and Processes in Second Language Acquisition: Multilingual

Socialization in Transnational Contexts. Retrieved April 2, 2019, from

https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12534.

Rebecca, O. L., & Christina, G. (2018). Interwoven: Culture, Language, and Learning Strategies. Retrieved

April 1, 2019, from https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1183950.

Sevilla, O., Sierra, J., & Setterlund, K. (2018, September). Equipping Bilingual Social Work Students from

the inside Out: Cultural Sensitivity, Self-Awareness, and Language.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2018.1474839

Tongson, M. B., & Eslit, E. B. (2018). Teaching Styles and Language Performance: Towards a Development

of an English Language Program. Retrieved April 2, 2019, from

https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED590796.

12