Stewart

1








Building Intercultural Competence Among US Students Studying Abroad: The
Homestay Experience versus Collective Housing
Traci Stewart
MIS Capstone
April 2014
North Carolina State University








Stewart


2
Building Intercultural Competence among US Students Studying Abroad:
The Homestay Component versus Collective Housing

I. Introduction
As the world becomes more globalized and international education through study
abroad continues to rapidly increase, the continuation of research on students who study
abroad has become popular and necessary (IIE, 2013). Universities want to measure the
development, feelings, thoughts, and preferences of students studying abroad (IIE,
2013). They are developing measurements of intercultural competency to explore
whether students are widening their worldviews and understanding of diverse cultures
through study abroad. One critical debate revolves around whether there is a difference
in the level of intercultural competency (ICC) in study abroad students who stay with a
host family versus those who reside in collective housing with fellow American students.
Research has shown that host family stays provide students with an experience
unlike any other (Schmidt-Rinehart & Knight, 2004, p. 259). Homestays allow students
to have the opportunity to gain first-hand knowledge of the host culture and use the
native language in an informal setting (Schmidt-Rinehart & Knight, 2004, p. 259). In the
article, The Homestay Component of Study Abroad: Three Perspectives, the authors
found the long-held homestay advantage belief to be true, that homestay families help
students in three major ways: linguistically, culturally, and psychologically (Schmidt-
Rinehart & Knight, 2004, p. 259). The most noticeable impact is linguistic because
students are motivated to stay with a host family based on gaining competence and
exposure to the target language outside of the classroom (Freed, 1998). According to
Stewart


3
Knight and Schmidt-Rinehart (2010), the number one goal of most students when
studying abroad is to increase their language skills (2010, p.76). In addition, Wilkinson
(1998) adds that the most efficient way to become fluent in a language is to live with a
native host family that has little or no English skills (1998, p.23).
On the other hand, some researchers question whether staying with a host family
actually enhances a students language skills and cultural knowledge. Some believe there
has been an over-generalization within literature that claims the only way to become
fluent in a language, as well as more Interculturally Competent, is to live with a host
family. One study found that home stay students were less likely to gain speaking and
listening proficiency than those in a dorm (Rivers, 1998, p.492). This claim suggests that
simply staying with a host family does not always result in language gains (Magnan &
Back, 2007; Wilkinson, 2002). Freed, So, and Lazar (2003) state their strong and
oppositional belief that immersion in the native speech community has often been
described as one of the surest ways to acquire fluency in a second language, yet there is
little empirical evidence to support this belief (2003, p. 34). In a case study of students
staying with a host family versus those living in a dorm in France, Magnan and Back
(2007) compared a small sample of student oral proficiency interviews. The results
found no significant difference in oral proficiency scores of those living with a native
speaking host family versus those who were living in a dorm. However, the sample size
was only twenty students, which may not be generalizable, as well as there were no
control factors present in the study.
Another study suggested that living with host families creates cross-cultural
misunderstanding between students and host families in various aspects of daily life
Stewart


4
(Wilkinson, 1998, p. 133). Many students feel threatened by the fundamental cultural
differences that they experience firsthand when living with a family from a very different
background (1998, p. 134). According to Bennetts Model of Intercultural Sensitivity,
students must pass through three ethnocentric stages before reaching the goal of
ethnorelative stages (1986, p.32). The ethnocentric stages of denial, defense, and
minimization can sometimes last the whole time students are living with a host family.
When students reach the ethnorelative stages, they are accepting, adaptive, and have a
desire to integrate more into the host culture. Wilkinsons study suggests that some
students may never pass through the ethnocentric stages during their time abroad and will
return home with bitterness toward the host culture. On the other hand, the students who
pass through the ethnocentric stages to the ethnorelative stages end up gaining more
communication skills, cultural sensitivity skills, and cross-cultural awareness skills
(Wilkinson, 1998, p.134).
Although there is an ongoing debate on whether choosing to stay with a host
family or in a dorm is most beneficial for the development of students, there still remains
no clear consensus. This research developed a new tool that seeks to expand upon and to
provide insight into whether there is a higher development of intercultural competence in
US students when staying with a host family or in collective housing with American
students. The instruments currently used to assess the phenomenon are drawn from
Intercultural Competency models.
This capstone research proceeds in the following order: First, Intercultural
Competency, Host Family, and Collective Housing are defined. After the
operationalization of these terms, related immersion case studies comparing homestays
Stewart


5
with collective housing are analyzed. Following the case studies is the comparison and
analysis of current Intercultural Competence tools. Drawing on these tools, a pre-test and
post-test to gauge Intercultural Competence in students who stay with a host family
compared to those who stay in collective housing is developed, as well as an active
participatory process in which students can engage while studying abroad to understand
changes in their levels of Intercultural Competency during the course of their experience.

Intercultural Competency
According to the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U),
Intercultural Competence is a way to identify and measure our own cultural patterns,
while comparing and contrasting them with others, and to adapt empathetically and
flexibly to unfamiliar ways of being (AAC&U, 2008). In addition, famous Intercultural
Competence (ICC) advocate Darla Deardorff defines intercultural competence as a set
of cognitive, affective, and behavioral skills and characteristics that support effective and
appropriate interactions in a variety of cultural contexts (2009, p.66). Trying to
comprehend cultures outside of ones own is a key to ICC, as well as being flexible and
empathetic to different ways of being (Deardorff, 2009, p.66). This view parallels
Loughs scholarly definition of ICC as the ability to relate and communicate effectively
when individuals involved in the interaction do not share the same culture, ethnicity,
language, or other salient variables (Lough, 2010, p.3).
According to Fantini and his diagram below (Figure 1), the five dimensions of
Intercultural Competence are knowledge, attitudes, skills, awareness, and proficiency in
the host language. Fantini claims awareness to be the most important aspect of cross-
Stewart


6
cultural development. Awareness can be improved through reflection and introspection.
Awareness is different from knowledge in that it always pertains to self by being
actively conscious of other things, people, and thoughts of the world. Since awareness is
at the center of ICC, knowledge, positive attitudes, and intercultural skills are what
furthers the development of one increasing their Intercultural Competence skills (Fantini,
2009, p.272).

Figure 1. Fantinis Four Dimensions of Intercultural Competence. Adapted from
Assessing Intercultural Competence: Issues and Tools, by A. Fantini, 2009, The SAGE
Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications

Based on the AAC&U rubric (2008) on Intercultural Knowledge and Competence
Values, there are six categories that measure Intercultural Competence:
1) Knowledge of cultural self-awareness: Articulates insights into own cultural
rules and biases (e.g. seeking complexity, aware of how his/her experiences have
shaped these rules, and how to recognize and respond to cultural biases, resulting
in a shift of self-description).
2) Knowledge of cultural worldview frameworks: Demonstrates sophisticated
understanding of the complexity of elements important to members of another
Stewart


7
culture in relation to its history, values, politics, communication styles, economy,
or beliefs and practices.
3) Empathy skills: Interprets intercultural experience from the perspectives of own
and more than one worldview and demonstrates ability to act in a supportive
manner that recognizes the feedings of another cultural group.
4) Verbal and nonverbal communication skills: Articulates a complex
understanding of cultural differences in verbal and nonverbal communication (e.g.
demonstrates understanding of the degree to which people use physical contact
while communicating in different cultures or use direct/indirect and
explicit/implicit meanings) and is able to skillfully negotiate a shared
understanding based on those differences.
5) Attitudes of curiosity: Asks complex questions about other cultures, seeks out,
and articulates answers to these questions that reflect multiple cultural
perspectives.
6) Attitudes of openness: Initiates and develops interactions with culturally
different others. Suspends judgment in valuing his/her interactions with culturally
different others.
(Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2013, rubric)

At a time where globalization calls for an opening of minds, hearts, and attitudes
toward other cultures, post-secondary institutions are encouraging students to work
towards increasing intercultural competence. Deardorff refers to this as
internationalizing the campus by bringing a global dimension to the education of
Stewart


8
students, especially by working toward Intercultural Competence (Deardorff, 2006,
pp.241-266). Other important definitions for this research include host family and
collective housing.

Host Family: According to Gutel (2007), a host family in regards to international
education is defined as an arrangement that allows individuals to reside with a family
other than their own for a particular period of time (pp. 173-188). It is an environment in
which a student lives and engages with a local family from the host culture. Host family
structure may vary through the number of children, single or double parent households,
as well as multi-generational family members (173-188). Other names for host family
include homestay or host stay.
Collective Housing: Contrary to a homestay, collective housing consists of any
housing such as dormitories, flats, apartments, or hotels where study abroad students only
live with people from their own country. For example, Americans studying abroad in
Spain and only living with American students is an example of collective housing
(Wilkinson, 1998, p.120).

II. Related Studies/ Project Significance
Williams study on intercultural communication concludes that being abroad in
and of itself is not enough, which means that students must interact with the culture
abroad in order to increase their intercultural communication skills (2005, p.356). To
many people, it is evident that living with a host family provides greater cultural
Stewart


9
immersion, and therefore yields improved intercultural communication skills and
ultimately intercultural competence.
One study by Wilkinson found that the fastest way to become more fluent in a
language, and in turn more interculturally sensitive, is to live with a host family that has
little English skills in an area of the world that attracts few English-speaking tourists
(Wilkinson, 1998, p. 121). Wilkinsons study analyzed students participating in
Collegiate Universitys Valcourt program. Students had the option of staying with a
French family or in a less expensive single room in a local university dormitory
(Wilkinson, 1998, p.126). Over an eight-month time span, students participated in
ethnographic interviews, tape-recorded conversation with French locals, and completed
photo journals. The study showed how host family immersion created more opportunities
for students to have more linguistic and cultural contact with the locals. These
opportunities arose through host family meals, shopping, and errands to the bank, post
office, and train station. In addition, students had the option of reading the local
newspaper and watching local television (Wilkinson, 1998, p.127).
The Valcourt study highlights how each student has different expectations and
how those expectations are either achieved or not. While some of the expectations of the
Valcourt students were met and exceeded, others were not met, which subsequently led to
student disappointment. Some host families, as shown through this study, are detached
and do not make their students feel like part of their family (Wilkinson, 1998, p.128).
Although there will always be negative homestay experiences for students, immersion
brings about greater development of intercultural sensitivity (Wilkinson, 1998, p.134).
Stewart


10
When comparing two girls who participated in homestays for the Valcourt case
study, one finds that both were exposed to many different cultures from a young age. Yet
following their study abroad trip to France, Ashley reported to have a negative homestay
experience and referred to French people as obstinate, proving her American
ethnocentricity. On the other hand, Molise seemed to be more ethnorelative before
studying abroad in France as found through a pre-departure interview. She was more
open and accepting to other cultures before she even arrived to her host family in France.
The difference in attitudes before immersion could have taken effect and contributed to
the reason why Ashley had a harder time connecting with her host family than Molise
(Wilkinson, 1998, p.135).
In addition, Wilkinson (1998) found intercultural sensitivity could be predicted
through the extent to which a person feels threatened culturally and linguistically in the
host community (p.134). Molise looked to her host family for comfort, while weakening
her relationships with the other American students. Conversely, Ashley sought
affirmation and comfort from other Americans and distanced herself as much as she
could from the French community (1998, p.134).
Goodwin and Nacht (1998) compare different types of study abroad programs to
learning how to swim in unknown waters. Different program models are differentiated
through the levels of aquatic instruction such as plunging in mid-stream or swimming in
the eddies (p.58).The levels of aquatic instruction represent the levels of study abroad
programs from short-term to long-term programs, as well as the differences between
housing options from staying with only American students to staying with people of a
different culture. Various program factors such as length of stay, types of housing, role of
Stewart


11
academics, role of program directors, and other factors, all help determine what a
students intercultural experience is like in reality, which in turn demonstrates the
students level of cultural immersion.
Engle and Engle believe there is so much variation in program type that it is
necessary to rank various study abroad programs on a level from one to five. Level one is
a named a Study Tour, which is composed of a couple of days to a few weeks time
span, using English, staying in collective hosing, and having very little provisions for
cultural interaction. The second level is a Short Term Study Program. This level ranges
from three to eight weeks, using a mixture of English and some of the target language,
staying with a host family or in collective housing, with no provisions for cultural
interactions. The third level is a Cross-Cultural Contact Program composed of a
semester program using English and some of the target language, while staying in
collective housing. The third level represents one part of this research where students
study abroad for a semester, stay in collective housing with only American students, and
limit their experiential learning and cultural interaction with native people. Next, level
four is characterized as a Cross Cultural Encounter Program. This program is designed
for a semester staying with a host family, using more of the native language and therefore
being more forced into integration and cultural activities. Lastly, level five is named a
Cross-Cultural Immersion Program. This program is also for a semester, staying with a
host family, but uses more advanced language skills in direct cultural learning through an
internship or service learning (2003, p. 11).
These levels of classification types show that programs consisting of collective
housing are on a lower classification level in terms of immersion. Level three was the
Stewart


12
highest level to achieve in terms of collective housing and students experienced limited to
no cultural interaction. On the other hand, levels four and five were classified by
homestays. The difference in the lower levels corresponding with collective housing and
the higher levels associated with homestays demonstrate that homestays have higher
cultural integration and experiential learning than collective housing (Engle & Engle,
2003, p. 11).

III. Hypotheses

Based on these studies and personal study abroad experiences, it can be
hypothesized that in comparison, students who stay with host families are more likely to
increase their level of intercultural competency than those who live in dorms with fellow
Americans or peers from the same country. As a result, students who stay with a host
family are more likely to achieve the following:
1) Gain better attitudes toward different cultures (respect, openness, and curiosity)
2) Increase in their knowledge of cultures
3) Increase in their empathy skills
4) Increase in their verbal and nonverbal communication skills

IV. Research Design
There has been a growing emphasis on the assessment of student learning and
intercultural competence among international educators to document the outcomes of the
educational benefits of study abroad on intercultural growth (Salisbury, 2011, p. 8). This
new trend, many times characterized as outcome assessment, has emphasized the
importance of evaluating study abroad experiences based on competency and learning
Stewart


13
outcomes (Williams, 2005, p. 357). This means educators now need to evaluate what
study abroad students are learning, the skills they are developing, and how these skills
can be translated into knowledge useful to real world experiences (Williams, 2005,
p.357). Evidence of study abroad outcomes has become necessary to maintain credibility
when compared to other education programs that have been measured throughout history
(Williams, 2005, p.357).
It is an ongoing theme that current Intercultural Competence tools do not solely
ask whether housing affects the level of Intercultural Competence of students studying
abroad. That is why the following research analyzes different tools for measuring ICC
and explains what is missing from these tools as well as what can be used to develop a
new test for measuring ICC when analyzing the housing of students. The following
section analyzes current best practices and the extent to which people are exploring
intercultural competence through different models and tools. Some of these tests are
listed and explained below.
One popular tool is the Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI). The
CCAI is an instrument used in training an individual to realize their potential for cross-
cultural effectiveness by providing the individual with information about him or herself
(Kelley & Meyers, 1005, p.2). This instrument helps students identify their strengths and
weaknesses in terms of their adaptability and skills in interacting with people from other
cultures. The CCAI incorporates four characteristics: emotional resilience, flexibility and
openness, perceptual acuity, and personal autonomy (Kelley and Meyers, 1995). These
traits have been identified in previous research as important aspects of Intercultural
Competence.
Stewart


14
First, the emotionally resilient student is one who is able to deal with stressful
situations and feelings in a constructive way by bouncing back easily from setbacks
(Williams, 2005, p.360). Second, the flexible and open student has an ethnorelative
perspective and accepts different ways of doing things (Williams, 2005, p.360). Third,
perceptual acuity is defined by Brislin and Yoshida as the degree of sensitivity
individuals have in terms of verbal and nonverbal messages, as well as interpersonal
relations in general (Brislin & Yoshida, 1994, p.90). Lastly, personal autonomy is the
ability of students to maintain their own personal beliefs when challenged by those of
other cultures (Williams, 2005, p. 361). The CCAI instrument takes the form of a
student self-survey where students plot their individual scores on a grid to produce
immediate visual results on where students stand in their intercultural communication
skills. It is intended to draw on areas of strength while focusing on skill development in
areas of weakness. The goal is to help the individual to efficiently and systematically
increase overall cross-cultural effectiveness (Meyers, 2014).
Although this tool has been successful in the past, for the purposes of this
research, it does not specifically target how housing affects the four characteristics that it
is measuring, such as emotional resilience, flexibility and openness, perceptual acuity,
and personal autonomy. Out of these four characteristics, measuring flexibility and
openness is the most beneficial measurement to pull out in order to measure intercultural
competence in regards to housing types. Students may become more flexible and open
depending on their housing type, which is what the new tool can examine.
The Global Competency and Intercultural Sensitivity Index (ISI) was
developed with the intention of measuring global competencies and intercultural
Stewart


15
sensitivity of individuals who study abroad. The ISI measures the following components:
First, substantive knowledge includes the knowledge of cultures, languages, and world
issues. Second, perceptual understanding includes open-mindedness, flexibility, and
resistance to stereotyping. Finally, intercultural communication includes skills such as
adaptability, empathy, and cultural meditation (Olson and Kroeger, 2011).
This tool focuses heavily on the skills needed to engage effectively with others
through empathy, cross-cultural awareness, intercultural relations, and cultural mediation.
The questions of intercultural awareness ask students to rate themselves making this tool
self-assessed. Two example questions ask students to rate themselves on the following
statements, I can act as a cultural mediator and serve as a bridge between people of
different cultures, and I feel self-confident and comfortable socializing with people
from other cultures (Olson & Kroeger, 2011, p.131). These questions make students
think twice about their own cultural biases and if they are willing to step outside of their
comfort zone.
The ISI model depicts how students begin their sensitivity to learning and
engaging with a different culture through the local language. This language sensitivity
can be translated to knowledge of the culture through four aspects: communication
competence, network, identity, and power. These four capacities for knowledge transfer
can either be improved upon and ultimately gained, or weakened, by cultural biases and
ethnocentrism. Communication competence can either be transferred to knowledge or
misunderstood. Networks can be developed or weakened by remaining embedded in
students home culture. Their identity is strengthened with appreciation of the host
culture or weakened by being stuck in his or her own cultural roots. Power is created
Stewart


16
when people have the ability to tolerate and reduce hierarchies. On the other hand, power
can be hindered by new kinds of unknown and unfamiliar politics and hierarchies. The
four dynamics just explained are shown in Figure 2.



Figure 2. ISI Model. Adapted from Global Competency and Intercultural Sensitivity,
by C. L Olson and K. R. Kroeger, 2001, Journal of Studies in International Education,
5(2).

This model is helpful in developing a new instrument to gather the most important
aspects associated with housing types while abroad. These include the perceptual
understanding of open-mindedness, flexibility, and resistance to stereotyping. In addition,
measuring intercultural communication skills such as adaptability, empathy, and cultural
medication is useful when determining if a difference exists in intercultural competence
among students when looking at different housing types.
Stewart


17
The Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) created by Milton
Bennett aims to find where individuals stand in the stages of cultural sensitivity and
understanding how they progress. This model shows the various ways individuals
respond to cultural differences. Bennett acknowledges that the relations that occur when
people are immersed into a new culture are dynamic, evolutionary, and developmental
(Engle & Engle, 2003, p.7). A persons journey is charted from denial and defense
through minimization, acceptance, adaptation, and integration (Engle & Engle, 2003,
p.7). The stages are each associated with different attitudes and behaviors. The first three
stages are characterized as being ethnocentric, which means denial, defense, and
minimization where individuals see their own culture as having more substance and
significance than other cultures. The next three stages are characterized as stages of
acceptance, adaptation, and integration. These are where individuals acknowledge
cultural differences and look at other cultures as equal to their own (Williams, 2005,
p.362).
DMIS is beneficial when used to evaluate which stage students are at in terms of
their cultural sensitivity through attitudes and behaviors. Olson and Kroeger (2011) have
developed a questionnaire based on the six DMIS stages. The questionnaire also includes
ten questions in regards to intercultural communication awareness. Olson and Kroeger
characterize this questionnaire by the title, Intercultural Sensitivity Index (ISI). The
Intercultural Sensitivity Index identifies where students place on the Development Model
of Intercultural Sensitivity and can be seen below in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Stewart


18

Figure 3. DMIS. Adapted from Becoming Interculturally Competent, by Michael
Bennett, 2004, Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education, 1-13.


Figure 4. DMIS. Adapted from Becoming Interculturally Competent, by Michael
Bennett, 2004, Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education, 1-13.

This model is useful when analyzing student attitude transformation over time
moving from ethnocentric stages to ethnorelative stages. In the new tool created for the
purposes of this research, students will be asked to create a journal in order to find out if
their housing choices positively affected their development of intercultural sensitivity.
Stewart


19
Just like the case study addressed in the previous section, one student developed more
ethnocentricity after their study abroad experience and one student became more
ethnorelative. These are important stages in analyzing whether intercultural competence
has increased or not in students after studying abroad. Obviously, the more ethnorelative
one becomes, the greater intercultural competence they attain.
One of the most popular tools is the Intercultural Knowledge and Competence
Value Rubric. The Intercultural Knowledge and Competence Value Rubric identifies six
measurements of Intercultural Competence: Cultural self-awareness, knowledge of
cultural worldview frameworks, empathy, verbal and nonverbal communication skills,
curiosity, and openness. Students can self-assess themselves on each of the six categories.
This rubric is used to test which ICC categories make students possess higher or lower
scores, and in turn, which skills they need to improve upon the most. Students rank
themselves on a scale from one to four. Level one is referred to as the benchmark or the
lowest score. Levels two and three are considered milestones where students are well on
their way to achieving the highest level of intercultural competence. Level four is called
the capstone level, which is the highest level one can achieve (Association of American
Colleges and Universities, 2013).
The rubric is separated into three categories with six sections. The three
categories are knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The knowledge section is composed of
cultural self-awareness and knowledge of cultural worldview frameworks. Cultural self-
awareness is seen when students can articulate their thoughts of cultural rules and biases.
In addition, cultural self-awareness involves recognizing and responding to these cultural
biases (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2013). Knowledge of cultural
Stewart


20
worldview frameworks is achieved when students comprehend the complexity of
important aspects of the foreign culture they are immersed in such as history, values,
politics, communication styles, economy, beliefs, and practices.
Empathy skills exist when students can interpret intercultural experiences from
the perspectives of more than one worldview. In addition, these skills involve acting in a
supportive manner that adequately recognizes the feelings of another cultural group.
Verbal and nonverbal communication skills involve being aware of the degree to which
people use physical contact while communicating in different cultures (handshakes, hugs,
kisses, etc.). In addition, students with greater communication skills are able to
understand how to communicate verbally with other cultures tactfully and skillfully.
Attitudes of curiosity occur when students are able to ask complex questions of
other cultures, while also seeking the answers to these complex questions. The final
component on the Intercultural Competence rubric is attitudes of openness. When a
student portrays an attitude of openness, they initiate interactions with people culturally
different from them. Open attitudes also suspend judgment while valuing his or her
interactions with people of diverse cultures.
This rubric is useful in narrowing down which aspects of Intercultural
Competence are most useful in order to measure if there are differing levels between
students in different living accommodations. The characteristics that seem to be
necessary to measure variation in housing types are cultural self-awareness, verbal and
nonverbal communication skills, as well as attitudes of openness. Cultural self-awareness
is how students realize their own biases through experiences and reflection or if they stay
ethnocentric and stuck in their roots of where they came from. Verbal and nonverbal
Stewart


21
communication skills show the level to which students can communicate with locals.
Communication skills are measured to show if students improve their communication
skills over the length of their program. Attitudes of openness are easily seen through
students actively asking questions and seeking to know about the immersion of the
culture they are studying. These three characteristics taken from the Intercultural
Knowledge and Competence Value Rubric are most practical in analyzing the effects of
housing types on students ICC.
Another relevant model is The Process Model of Intercultural Competence by
Darla Deardorff. Through this model Deardorff defines Intercultural Competence as a
set of cognitive, affective, and behavioral skills and characteristics that support effective
and appropriate interaction in a variety of cultural contexts (2009, p.66). This model
begins with attitudes of respect, openness, and curiosity. The next step occurs when a
student gains knowledge and comprehends their cultural self-awareness, sociolinguistic
awareness, as well as deep cultural knowledge. As a result, skills are developed in which
students are able to listen, observe, evaluate, analyze, interpret, and relate.
Using this model, Deardorff explains the two measureable outcomes of
intercultural competence: external and internal measurements. The external outcome is
referred to by Deardorff as effective and appropriate behavior and communication in
intercultural situations (Deardorff, 2009, p.66). Internally, students must be aware that
ICC is an ongoing process involving critical thinking as well as open attitudes and the
ability to see from the perspectives of other cultures. This model is depicted in Figure 5
and Figure 6.
Stewart


22

Figure 5.Pyramid Model of Intercultural Competence. Adapted from Darla Deardorff,
2009, The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence, Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage
Publications Inc., 480.

Stewart


23

Figure 6. Process Model of Intercultural Competence. Adapted from Darla Deardorff,
2009, The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence, Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage
Publications Inc., 480.

Stewart


24
This model is most helpful in identifying where students stand in their process of
intercultural competence before and after studying abroad. It can be used as part of the
tool on measuring students intercultural competence before and after living with a host
family or in collective housing. Students will be asked to reflect individually, as well as
circle where they believe they currently stand on the Intercultural Competence Model
constructed by Darla Deardorff, as seen in the above model. Deardorff sees intercultural
competence as a process orientation through this evaluation model. First, students begin
by identifying their attitudes, openness, and curiosity toward other cultures. The next step
is seen through knowledge of cultures, listening, and observation skills. Knowledge and
skills can be tracked by a desired internal outcome or a desired external outcome. The
desired internal outcome is having empathy towards different cultures, as well as
adaptability and flexibility. On the other hand, the desired external outcome is identified
through behavior and communication that is effective and appropriate. This model is also
effective in identifying where students currently stand on the Intercultural Competence
process and if they improve over time by rotating down the pyramid or around the
process model. It also shows how Intercultural Competence is not a one-time
measurement, but it can be constantly improved upon and never fully achieved
(Deardorff, 2006, pp.241-266).
One of the best methods to determine the extent to which students gain
Intercultural Competence over their experiences is through the Intercultural
Competence and Global Development Survey developed by Ogden and Kumai, located
in Appendix A. This survey is used to find how students develop internationally through
education abroad (Ogden & Kumai, 2010). The four pages of the survey utilize the
Stewart


25
following categories: a) Page 1 (Questions 1-8) lists background information. b) Page 2
(Questions 1-13) titled Statements regarding your views of the world, can be
categorized for the ICC measurements of cultural self-awareness and knowledge of
cultural frameworks. c) Page 3 (Questions 1-13) titled Your abilities to function in the
world, is categorized for the ICC measurements of empathy skills as well as verbal and
nonverbal communication skills. d) Page 4 (Questions 1-17) titled Your present
thinking, is categorized for attitudes of curiosity and openness. This survey makes
students ask themselves hard questions on how they see the world and how aware they
are of the cultural norms and practices of their own culture as well as other cultures. This
tool also effectively asks questions for each category of Intercultural Competence
through cultural self-awareness, skills, attitudes, as well as knowledge.
The Intercultural Competence and Global Development Survey is helpful to
identify useful categories of questions that can reach the core of finding if there is a
difference in ICC of students staying in different accommodations while abroad. The
downfalls of this tool are the length, as well as the failure to ask open-ended questions so
students can self-reflect. Self-reflection is an important aspect of assessing Intercultural
Competence and should be included in this tool. Yet, despite the downfalls of length and
only indirect measurements of Intercultural Competence, this tool provides an exemplary
model of how to ask students effective questions that reach the core of Intercultural
Competence.





Stewart


26
V. Analysis & Instrument

Research shows that less than ten percent of undergraduates take a course in
International Relations, and less than twenty percent of four-year colleges require more
than two years of foreign language study (Bok, 2006). This observation is why it is so
crucial that Intercultural Competence be incorporated in college student coursework.
Students and faculty need to come to a greater understanding of what Intercultural
Competence means for students. According to Darla Deardorff, integrating Intercultural
Competence into the curriculum entails finding avenues to bring about diverse cultural
perspectives, and requiring students to participate in a domestic or international cultural
immersion experience (Deardorff, 2009, p.6).
The models and tools for Intercultural Competence analyzed in the previous
section do not explore the situational relationship that the study abroad dimension of
housing can influence. Three major shortcomings were found in the Intercultural
Competence tools that led to the development of a new Intercultural Competence tool.
While the tools were effective in various aspects, they did not directly focus on how one
can measure if there is a significant difference in the Intercultural Competence of
students depending on their housing situation.
First, the tools that were analyzed focused on too many aspects of Intercultural
Competence instead of narrowing them down to a few key aspects that more richly
address student development. These aspects include communication, skills identity,
power, ethnocentric stages, ethnorelative stages, resistance to stereotyping, cultural self-
awareness, empathy skills, curiosity, openness, and a wide range of other skills. Since
Intercultural Competence is composed of a broad range of definitions about being
Stewart


27
interculturally sensitive, a multitude of aspects and characteristics can be measured. This
can be a downfall of measuring Intercultural Competence because when there are too
many aspects to focus on; researchers can lose some depth of insight into student
development.
Secondly, the tools analyzed did not provide both direct and indirect
measurements of ICC. Direct measurements are composed of student writing, reflection,
and observation, while indirect measurements are self-reported tools and interviews.
Awareness is a central and critical aspect of Intercultural Competence development. It is
improved through reflection and introspection. Reflection and awareness helps identify
what is deepest and most relevant to student identity (Fantini, 2014, p.2). Research has
shown that students who reflect and observe their study abroad experience become less
ethnocentric and more culturally sensitive and aware of the local people with whom they
interact. Also, in programs where reflection was mandatory, students reported to have a
more life-changing experience than those who did not reflect (Deardorff, 2009, p. 66).
Therefore, direct measurements through personal and class reflection should be a critical
aspect of a study abroad experience.
The last shortcoming found in the Intercultural Competence tools analyzed was
that each tool did not take the form of both a pre-test and post-test; instead, the tools were
only used to show where students currently stand on the intercultural competence scale.
Since intercultural competence is not a one-time measurement and is something that can
be constantly improved and never fully achieved, a pre-test and post-test tool would be
most beneficial in seeing if students have improved in different areas of their intercultural
Stewart


28
competence from when they depart the US compared to when they return from their
study abroad program.

Steps in Creating a New Tool for Assessing Intercultural Competence
This analysis of the three main shortcomings of the Intercultural Competence
tools has led to the development of a new tool focused directly on housing, which is
located in Appendix B. In order to improve upon the previous tools, as well as focus on
housing, three steps have been generated. The new tool focuses on a narrower scope of
Intercultural Competence instead of a broad lens. In addition, the tool uses direct and
indirect measurements, as well as takes the form of a pre-test and post-test. These three
steps are listed below with greater explanation.
Three aspects of Intercultural Competence that are brought out most clearly in
various housing situations become the major testing categories in the new tool. These
three aspects are cultural self-awareness, flexibility skills, and communication skills.
Cultural self-awareness can be seen in housing if students are aware of their own cultural
biases or believe that despite their differences with other cultures, they are also similar in
some ways. Flexibility skills show how likely students are to develop interactions with
other cultures through their homestay or collective housing experience and also how
often they acknowledge their judgments of other cultures. Lastly, communication skills
demonstrate how comfortable and confident students are in talking with the people of a
different culture while using the native language (Association of American Colleges &
Universities, 2013, rubric).
Stewart


29
First, flexibility and open-mindedness involves having open-mindedness to new
ideas and changes, as well as high tolerance of ambiguity (Williams, 2005, p.358). This
includes having cultural empathy and non-judgmental perceptiveness, which involves
having sensitivity to all humankind while valuing all men without judgment (Williams,
2005, p.359). Ultimately, intercultural skills can be summarized as an individuals
capacity to suspend or modify some of the old cultural ways. In addition, these skills
allow one to seek to learn and accommodate new cultural ways while creatively finding
ways to manage the dynamics of cultural differences, intergroup posture, and
accompanying stress (Kim, 1991, p. 268).
Second, cultural self- awareness is important to gain Intercultural Competence. In
order for the program to be successful, it is also extremely crucial for students to be open,
respectful, and curious, otherwise known as cross-culturally sensitive (Deardorff, 2009,
p.68). Deardorff indicates being cross-culturally sensitive is the basis for Intercultural
Competence. Although behavioral skills take time to develop, awareness of cross-cultural
sensitivity will make students realize what they can improve upon when relating and
comparing themselves to other cultures. This involves intrapersonal skills or how
students can change their sense of self in the world. The evaluation of self stems from
cultural empathy (how students approach others), the acknowledgement of cultural
limitations, as well as truly respecting and valuing people of other ethnic backgrounds as
human beings. This requires critical thinking or thinking outside of the box which is
crucial as well (Deardorff, 2009, p.68).
Thirdly, communication skills are shown when a student demonstrates they have
gained a greater understanding of cultural differences and the misunderstandings that
Stewart


30
may occur because of these differences. Communication skills are characterized verbally
and non-verbally and are also seen when students can effectively prove they have a
shared understanding with different cultural groups (Association of American Colleges
and Universities, 2013, rubric).
The next step is the creation of a plan for students and faculty to dialogue and
self-reflect about questions each week that reveal their cultural biases, depth of
interaction with the culture, and ultimately explore their development each week in their
homestays as well as their collective housing. Self-reflection is an important aspect of
assessing Intercultural Competence and in order to be effectively measured, it is
necessary for direct assessment to be included.
Finally, a pre and post-test is created to effectively measure if both homestay and
collective housing students have moved farther along the Intercultural Competence scale
after returning home from their program. In addition, the pre and post-test is intended to
examine whether students who stay with a host family are more Interculturally
Competent than those who stay in collective housing with only American students.
In order to validate creating another tool that measures Intercultural Competence,
it was useful to conceptualize what the other tools were missing in regards to this
research. It was evident that even though all Intercultural Competence tools measure
different aspects of Intercultural Competence, there was not one that specifically focused
on the ICC skills that can be best measured and seen through variables in housing types.
Therefore, in developing this tool, the following questions need to be answered:

Stewart


31
1) What are the most important aspects of Intercultural Competence that need to
be assessed?
Based on the Intercultural Competence tools and models that were researched
and analyzed, the most common skills that went to the core of ICC were
intercultural communication skills, flexibility and openness, and cultural self-
awareness.
2) What are the goals of developing this tool?
The goals are to develop an instrument that highlights key components of
Intercultural Competence that can be clearly evaluated through variances in
housing accommodations while studying abroad. In addition, it is necessary to
measure ICC both directly and indirectly. Direct measurements consist of
student writing, reflection, and observation. On the other hand, indirect
measurements are assessed through self-report tools and interviews.
3) What does this tool want students to achieve by the end of their study abroad
program?
The goal of this tool is to enable universities to use the tool to find out if
students who are staying with host families are really developing higher levels
of Intercultural Competence after their study abroad program as opposed to
those staying in collective housing with only American students.
4) Why is there a need for this tool?
With the many tools that exist to measure Intercultural Competence, there was
not one that specifically focused on ICC characteristics that will help
determine whether housing types spur a higher level of Intercultural
Stewart


32
Competence in students. Therefore, this new tool seeks to focus on specific
questions about the characteristics of ICC such as intercultural communication
skills, flexibility and openness, as well as cultural self- awareness that
accurately measure if students are increasing their levels of ICC after studying
abroad, and if housing types play a role in this change.
The four questions answered above have made it easier to create an original
Intercultural Competence tool built on foundational goals. The questions help to
ensure student success in measuring Intercultural Competence based on various
housing types.

The ICC Tool

When a student studies a language, they usually have a desired goal of greater
linguistic competence. Students have a reason to exert effort toward language gain and
instructors can help by motivating students toward language gain and encouraging them
to progress from well-defined beginning and ending points (Engle & Engle, 2003, p.7).
The process of learning a language is labeled with elementary, intermediate, and
advanced levels of language gain. The road to gaining a greater intercultural competence
can be approached in a similar way. Although there is not an ending point in Intercultural
Competence, the goal of study abroad should be to move students farther along the
Intercultural Competence scale.
Based on Darla Deardorffs key points in quality intercultural learning
assessment, there are important steps to take to ensure a more successful assessment of
Intercultural Competence. First, it is important to start with solid goals. Then, a mixed
Stewart


33
methods approach using direct and indirect methods is most beneficial in assessment.
Next, Deardorff suggests going beyond pre-tests and post-tests and integrating
assessment into the study abroad experience. These steps were taken into account and
followed in developing the new tools (Deardorff, 2014).
The tool created is named the Intercultural Competence tool for Variation in
Housing Types (ICC-VH), seen in Appendix B. This instrument seeks to ask questions
about Intercultural Competence that are geared directly at the housing experience in order
to find if: 1) both homestay and collective housing students move farther along the
Intercultural Competence scale after their study abroad program and 2) if students who
participate in a homestay experience become more Interculturally Competent than those
who stayed in collective housing with only American students. The pre-test tool will be
administered before students leave for their study abroad experience while the post-test
tool will be administered after they return. Throughout their time abroad, students will
reflect upon their experience every day to gain a more accurate description and open-
ended reflection of how they are adapting to another culture and how they perceive
themselves in comparison to others.
The pre-test assessment begins with basic demographic information. This
information includes sex, age, ethnic background, and academic class standing. Then, the
tool gauges previous international experience, such as if they have traveled or studied
abroad before, as well as if they speak another language. In addition, background
information about the upcoming study abroad experience, including whether or not they
are staying with a host family or in collective housing, concerns, and potential areas of
excitement is also gathered. Furthermore, questions about awareness of the country they
Stewart


34
will be entering are included. The background information questions are all open ended
in order to promote direct reflection and observation from students. Direct reflection will
enable the researcher to gain a better insight into each person participating in this pre-test.
The next set of questions on the pre-test tool gauge student agreement on a scale
from strongly disagree to strongly agree in the three Intercultural Competence areas of
cultural self-awareness, flexibility skills, as well as communication skills. The questions
regarding cultural self-awareness determine if students are aware of their cultural biases
and distinct worldviews that have been ingrained in their everyday lives. In addition,
these questions ask if they have any nationalistic views that can skew their perspectives
of other cultures while participating in their study abroad program.
The section of questions regarding flexibility skills assesses the extent to which
students feel comfortable in interacting with people of other cultures. In addition, this
measures how often students consciously acknowledge and suspend their judgments of
other cultures as well as students pre-trip communication skills. These questions show
whether students are comfortable and confident in speaking with people of other cultures
and how often students are willing to communicate with a person who does not share a
common language. One of the most telling questions asked is if students would strike a
conversation with a person on the street or in the local supermarket if they were of a
different cultural background.
Similar questions are asked upon student return in the post-test for comparison in
order to gauge student development and growth during their trip. The demographic
questions on the post-test remain similar to the pre-test. Questions about cultural self-
awareness, flexibility skills, and communication skills are the same as the pre-test except
Stewart


35
are posed in the past tense in order to get a clear picture of student growth during their
study abroad experience.
The pre and post-test contain many subtle questions that pertain to development in
regards to their homestay or collective housing experience. For example, students who
make friends with the locals or watch the local television in the native language appear to
be more Interculturally Competent than those who prefer to watch English television and
stay around their American friends. In addition to the pre and post-test tool, students and
faculty will reflect and dialogue one question each week in order to gain more rich
research and student development answers. The plan for student to faculty dialogue is
listed below.

Plan of Student to Faculty Dialogue
While this tool seeks to determine if housing type effects how far along the ICC
scale students end up after studying abroad, it is not the only way of determining a
students Intercultural Competence. The faculty or staff leading the program will ask
each student to reflect upon one of these questions each week they are abroad for the
semester. That means four questions a month will be reflected upon with a total of twelve
questions if the program lasts for a semester. This is to ensure direct measurements of
measuring Intercultural Competence through student reflection as well as indirect
measurements through the pre and post-test. This will enable a greater understanding and
a more accurate answer to the research question: Is there a difference in the level of
Intercultural Competence between students who stay with a host family versus those who
Stewart


36
stay in collective housing with American students? Reflection each week will help to
answer this research question more accurately than just a pre and post- test.

Questions for Student Reflection during Students Time Abroad
Week 1
1 What was your biggest fear about studying abroad that you are overcoming or have already
overcome?
2 Have you come across any cultural biases you might have? If so, what are they? If not,
explain why.
3 Who have you bonded with the most so far on this program?
4 What have been some of the challenges with your living accommodations while abroad?
Week 2
5 Has your housing situation opened up any opportunities for you to explore the culture more?
6 Have you made many local friends? If so, describe them.
7 What is your favorite aspect of the culture in which you are immersed?
8 What do you miss most about home?
Week 3
9 What are you going to miss most from the host culture?
10 What skills have you gained from this experience?
11 Would you study abroad again? If so, why? If not, why?
12 Would you want to stay with a host family or with American students next time you study
abroad?

Students will keep a journal with each question answered by the end of their study
abroad experience. With input from the faculty or staff instructors, responses to the initial
questions can prompt evaluation though dialogue and interactions to track their progress
and development in the different areas of Intercultural Competence. In addition, the
questions below are listed to aid faculty and staff in evaluating each question that the
students reflect upon in their journals, as well as verbally communicate in class
discussions.
For example, the first week, students reflect and dialogue about the question
What was your biggest fear about before studying abroad that you are trying to
Stewart


37
overcome or have already overcome? In correspondence with this question, faculty or
staff will answer the question Have they overcome a fear? This gives faculty their own
questions to evaluate the reflection of their students. Although this can be subjective,
direct measurements through self-reflection are a key aspect of learning where students
stand on the scale of Intercultural Competence.

Faculty Evaluation for Student Reflection to Assess Development
Week 1
1 Have students overcome a fear?
2 Can they articulate their cultural biases or are they still too biased to see their perspective
clearly?
3 Have they bonded more with Americans or foreigners?
4 Did they embrace their living accommodation challenges or were bitter towards them?
Week 2
5 Did they embrace or take advantage of cultural opportunities?
6 Have they made local friends or stayed within their American bubble?
7 Do they appreciate the culture in which they are immersed?
8 Do they miss home, or not want to leave their new culture?
Week 3
9 Will they miss their new culture or have they stayed ingrained in their American mindset?
10 Have they gained communication skills?
11 How likely are they to study abroad again?
12 Do they want to immerse themselves with a host family or stay with American students?



Recommended Experimental Groups to Test the Tool
According to Engle and Engle, program classification is characterized by seven
categories: length of student sojourn, entry target-language competence, language used in
course work, context of academic work, types of student housing, provisions for guided
or structured cultural interaction and experiential learning, as well as guided reflection on
cultural experience. Based on these seven criteria, this tool would be most effective under
the following conditions: implemented in semester programs located in countries that do
Stewart


38
not speak English (for example, Spanish speaking countries), guided by faculty or staff
on reflection, occupied by students who speak the foreign language on an intermediate
level, and most importantly, represented by a mixture of students staying with host
families or in collective housing with only American students (Engle and Engle, 2003,
p.8). Experimenting with these criteria will make this tool most valuable.
By experimenting using only the criteria listed above, the tool can avoid biases
that come with the two major aspects of study abroad such as length of program and
language skills. Testing for Intercultural Competence is most effective when analyzing
students who study abroad for at least a semester. Semester programs are characterized as
an immersion experience because students have much more time to become acquainted
and adapt to the local culture compared to a week-long or month long study abroad
program. Therefore, it is more effective to test the Intercultural Competence of students
who are studying abroad for at least a semester.
In addition, experimenting with students who are at least on the intermediate
language level can ensure non-biased communication skills measurement.
Communication skills are one of the biggest barriers for students to overcome while
abroad. In order to answer the research question if students who stay with a host family
or in collective housing are more Interculturally Competent, it is best to use the new pre
and post-test tool on students who are on the intermediate level for foreign language
skills.






Stewart


39
VI. Conclusion

In conclusion, this research has investigated whether housing plays a role in the
level of intercultural competency in study abroad students. As the world becomes more
globalized, it is crucial for research to be done on how each individual student can
become more Interculturally Competent. In this specific case, best practices of evaluating
intercultural competence have been gathered and a tool to measure the intercultural
competence of students when comparing those who stayed with a host family and those
who stayed in collective housing with American students has been developed.
Many tools exist today that measure Intercultural Competence and its various
characteristics. Although these tools are effective in measuring the different aspects of
Intercultural Competence, they do not specifically assess the direct issue on if housing
affects Intercultural Competence. The purpose of creating this new Intercultural
Competence tool is to focus on the study abroad dimension of housing. This tool aims at
answering if there a difference in the level of intercultural competency in American
students who study abroad and stay with a host family compared to those who stay in
collective housing with only American students. Although this research question cannot
fully be answered without being tested, the tool was developed in order for a study
abroad office of an international education entity to statistically answer the question in
the future.
This research analyzed case studies comparing the two groups of students, those
who participate in homestays and those who stay in collective housing with only
American students. In addition, an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of various
popular and widely used Intercultural Competence tools was completed. Finally, informal
Stewart


40
interviews were conducted to gain background knowledge of whether there does seem to
be a greater Intercultural Competence in homestay students compared to collective
housing students.
Informal surveying of study abroad students indicates there are differences in
Intercultural Competence of students whose housing types vary. Students who stayed in
either a hotel or a dormitory with other American students admitted that they thought
they would have gained a more comprehensive experience of the culture if students were
to stay with a host family versus with only Americans. They also said that they did not
use the native language too often, and if they did, the basic words were used in order to
vaguely communicate with people who could not speak English. These students
commented that they asked for the translated versions of newspapers and used their tour
guide mainly as their translator. Students believed it would have been more of a cultural
experience to stay with a host family and become less of a tourist.
The students interviewed who stayed with a host family recalled that they felt
more immersed in their homestay environment because they were required to speak the
language more and did not use American students as a crutch to escape the culture. There
was also a general consensus that the housing situation was frequently the main highlight
of the trip. Students believed that they learned more about the country, culture, and
language from their homestay parents than from any other people. These students also
watched the local television and read the local newspaper more often than those who
stayed in collective housing with only Americans.
The difficulties that may arise if a study abroad office were to use this tool would
be the complexity of measuring the many different types of study abroad programs.
Stewart


41
These programs are characterized by country and length of study. Clearly, there are a
multitude of different countries and cultures where the questions on the tool might need
to be altered. In addition, the length of study abroad programs is widely varied and could
cause difficulty in trying to measure different student groups. Nevertheless, the tool and
ongoing dialogue plan made can still broadly assess the notion of whether one type of
housing effect the level of Intercultural Competence in American students studying
abroad.
Intercultural Competence has become a popular way of assessing the development
of students in their interactions and mindsets of various cultures. It is important to keep
pushing students to become more aware of their cultural biases that have been ingrained
in their everyday lives. The tool created here aims at doing that very thing, to make
students aware and more sensitive of cultures other than their own, seen clearly through
variations in housing types.
Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, There is a sort of poverty of the spirit which
stands in glaring contrast to our scientific and technological abundancewe have learned
to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not learned the simple art
of living together as brothers. That is the goal of this capstone; to take one-step further
to students realizing how much they can learn and grow from becoming more
Interculturally Competent.








Stewart


42
References
Allen, H., & Dupuy, B. (2013). Study Abroad, Foreign Language Use, and the Communities
Standard. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 45(4), 468-493.
Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/store/10.1111/j.1944-
9720.2013.01209.x/asset/flan1209.pdf?v=1&t=hmruvtyr&s=f119f3438755592ad3da8
557c2f388a48ac19058
Association of American Colleges & Universities Retrieved December 1, 2013, from
http://www.quia.com/files/quia/users/gmcira/CoreCompetencies/Intercultural_Knowled
ge_and_Competence_Value_Rubric_jpg.png
Bennett, M. (2004). Becoming Interculturally Competent. Toward multiculturalism: A reader
in multicultural education, 1-13.

Brislin, R. W., & Yoshida, T. (1994). Intercultural communication training: An

introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Deardorff, D. (2006). Identification and Assessment of Intercultural Competence as a
Student Outcome of Internationalization. Journal of Studies in International
Education, 10(241), 241-266.

Deardorff, D. K. (2009). The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand

Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Fantini, A. (2009). Assessing Intercultural Competence: Issues and Tools. In D. K. Deardorff
(ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage
Publications
Stewart


43
Freed, B. F. (1998). An overview of issues and research in language learning in a study

abroad setting. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 4(2),

31-60.

Fryer, C., Lukasevich, A. (1998). Home away from home: Eight female Japanese

students share their North American homestay experiences. American Language

Review, 2(4), 14-17.
Goldoni, F. (2013). Students' Immersion Experiences in Study Abroad. American Council on
the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 359-376. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/store/10.1111/flan.12047/asset/flan12
047.pdf?v=1&t=hmruv8er&s=8b867cd199121f4c556435e554193636ddbc497b
Goldstein, S. B., & Kim, R. I. (2006). Predictors of US college students participation in
study abroad programs: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 30, 507-521.

Goodwin, C. D., & Nacht, M. (1998). Report on International Educational Exchange. Open

Doors 98/99 Institute of International Education, 58.

Gutel, H. (2007). The home stay: A gendered perspective. Frontiers: The

Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15, 173-188.
Institute of International Education (n.d.). Institute of International Education.
Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www.iie.org/


Juveland, S. R. (2011). Foreign Language Students' Beliefs about

Homestays. Portland State University, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 1-118.

Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/docview/908337948
Stewart


44

Kaplan, M. A. (1989). French in the community: A survey of language use abroad. The

French Review, 63(2), 290-301.

Kelley, C. and Meyers, J. (1995), The Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory (Minneapolis,

MN: National Computer System).

Kim, Y. Y. (1991). Intercultural communication competence: A systems-theoretic view.

In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds,), Cross-cultural interpersonal

communication (pp.259-275). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lough, B. (2010).

Predictors of Intercultural Competence Among International Volunteers. Washington

University Open Scholarship, 3-15. Retrieved from

http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article
Knight, S. M., & Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C. (2002). Enhancing the Homestay: Study Abroad
from the Host Family's Perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 35(2), 190-201.
Knight, S. M., & Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C. (2010). Exploring Conditions to Enhance
Student/Host Family Interaction Abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 64-79.
doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01060.x
Magnan, S. S., Back, M. (2007). Social interaction and linguistic gain during study
abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 43-61.
Martinsen, R. A. (2010). Short-Term Study Abroad: Predicting Changes in Oral Skills.
Foreign Language Annals, 43(3), 504-530. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01095.x
Obst, D., Bhandari, R., & Witherell, S. (2007). Current Trends in US Study Abroad & The
Impact of Strategic Diversity Initiatives. Institute of International Education, (1), 1-24.
Stewart


45
Ogden, A., & Kumai, T. (2010). Global Development Survey. Retrieved December 1,
2013, from
http://www.uky.edu/toolkit/sites/www.uky.edu.toolkit/files/GlobalDevelopmentSca
le.pdf
Olson, C. L., & Kroeger, K. R. (2001). Global Competency and Intercultural
Sensitivity.Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(2), 116-137. Retrieved
from http://jsi.sagepub.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/content/5/2/116
Open Doors | Institute of International Education. (2012). Retrieved October 10, 2013, from
http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors

Paine, D. E. (2007). An exploration of three residence hall types and the academic

and social integration of first year students. Scholar Commons of University of

South Florida, 1-94. Retrieved from

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3313&context=etd
Pusiran, A., & Xiao, H. (2013). Challenges and Community Development: A Case Study of
Homestay in Malaysia. EBSCOhost, 9(5), 1-18.
Rivers, W. P. (1998). Is Being There Enough? The Effects of Homestay Placements on
Language Gain During Study Abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 31(4), 492-500.
Salisbury, M. H., Umbach, P. D., Paulsen, M. B., & Pascarella, E. T. (2009). Going Global:
Understanding the Choice Process of the Intent to Study Abroad. Research in Higher
Education, 119-143.
Schmidt-Rinehart, B. C., & Knight, S. M. (2004). The Homestay Component of Study
Abroad: Three Perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 254-262.
Stewart


46
Shaftel, J., Shaftel, T., & Ahluwalia, R. (2007). International Educational Experience and
Intercultural Competence. International Journal of Business & Economics, 6(1), 25-
34.
Taylor, E. W. (1994). Intercultural Competency: A Transformative Learning Process. Adult
Education Quarterly, 154-174.
Vande Berg, M. (2007). Intervening in the learning of U.S. students abroad. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 11, 392-399.
Wilkinson, S. (1998). On the Nature of Immersion During Study Abroad: Some Participant
Perspectives. Short-Term Study Abroad: Predicting Changes in Oral Skills, 121-138.
Wilkinson, S. (1998b). Study abroad from the participants perspective: A challenge to
common beliefs. Foreign Language Annals, 31(1), 23-39.
Wilkinson, S. (2002). The omnipresent classroom during summer study abroad:
American students in conversation with their French hosts. The Modern Language
Journal, 86, 157-173

Williams, T. (2005). Exploring the Impact of Study Abroad on Student's Intercultural

Communication Skills: Adaptability and Sensitivity. Journal of Studies in

International Education, 356-371.




Stewart


47
Appendix A

Intercultural Competence and Global Development Survey
By Anthony Ogden and Tomomi Kumai


Stewart


48


Stewart


49


Stewart


50



Stewart


51
Appendix B

Stewart


52

Stewart


53
Stewart


54

Stewart


55

Stewart


56
Stewart


57
Stewart


58