Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Intercultural Competence Development Among University Students From a Self-Regulated Learning Perspective

Theoretical Model and Measurement

Published Online:July 12, 2017https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000282

Abstract

Abstract. Intercultural competence is defined as a lifelong learning task that can be developed in any intergroup situation. A self-regulated learning model is applied to better understand the intercultural learning process that is initiated during the forethought phase, monitored during the performance phase, and evaluated during the self-reflection phase. In each phase, particular psychological constructs are important to initiate, monitor, and evaluate the learning process. The empirical goals of the present study were (1) to develop a self-report questionnaire capturing the three learning phases, (2) to test the theoretical structure of the proposed intercultural learning process, and (3) to examine two theoretically meaningful learning cycles. Data were collected from 188 women and 48 men aged 18–47 years (M = 26.41, SD = 6.19). Structural equation models (SEMs) demonstrated that intercultural learning goals, intercultural self-efficacy, and intercultural intrinsic interest form the latent factor forethought phase. In line with composite models of intercultural competence, the intercultural learning goals had a three-factor structure (knowledge domain, attitude domain, communication domain). Self-monitoring, self-recording, and self-experimentation form the latent factor performance phase. Mediation analyses provided initial evidence of the existence of two distinct learning cycles: (1) The forethought phase precedes the performance phase which precedes both self-evaluation and success attribution on intercultural competence (constructs of the self-reflection phase). (2) The performance phase precedes optimizing future learning (construct of the self-reflection phase) which precedes the forethought phase indicating the emergence of a future learning action. The theoretical and practical value of the newly developed self-assessment of intercultural competence is discussed.

References

  • Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Barrett, M. (2013). Intercultural competence: A distinctive hallmark of interculturalism?. In M. BarrettEd., Interculturalism and multiculturalism: Similarities and differences (pp. 147–168). Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bennett, M. J. (1986a). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. PaigeEd., Cross-cultural orientation: New conceptualizations and applications (pp. 27–70). New York, NY: University Press of America. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bennett, M. J. (1986b). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 179–196. doi: 10.1016/0147-1767(86)90005-2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bolten, J. (2006). Interkultureller Trainingsbedarf aus der Perspektive der Problemerfahrungen entsandter Führungskräfte [Need for intercultural training from the perspective of manager’s abroad with problem experiences]. Interkulturelles Lernen, interkulturelles Training (pp. 57–75). Munich, Germany: Hampp. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Deardorff, D. K. (2015). Intercultural competence: Mapping the future research agenda. In K. GötzEd., International Journal of Intercultural Relations (48, pp. 3–5). doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.002 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10, 241–266. doi: 10.1177/1028315306287002 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Erll, A. & Gymnich, M. (2010). Interkulturelle Kompetenzen–Erfolgreich kommunizieren zwischen den Kulturen [Intercultural competencies – successful communication between cultures]. Stuttgart, Germany: Klett Lerntraining. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Fantini, A. E. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools. In D. K. DeardorffEd., The sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 456–476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hammer, M. R. (2011). Additional cross-cultural validity testing of the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 474–487. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.02.014 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hammer, M. R. (2015). The developmental paradigm for intercultural competence research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 48, 12–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.004 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Holmes, P. & O’Neill, G. (2012). Developing and evaluating intercultural competence: Ethnographies of intercultural encounters. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 707–718. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.04.010 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jerusalem, M. & Satow, L. (1999). Schulbezogene Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung [Self-efficacy expectations at school]. Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer-und Schülermerkmalen (pp. 15–16). Berlin, Germany: FU. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Koester, J. & Lustig, M. W. (2015). Intercultural communication competence: Theory, measurement, and application. In R. SchwarzerM. JerusalemEds., International Journal of Intercultural Relations (pp. 20–21). 48. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.006 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53–76. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3201_3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Matsumoto, D. & Hwang, H. C. (2013). Assessing cross-cultural competence: A review of available tests. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 849–873. doi: 10.1177/0022022113492891 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schiefele, U., Krapp, A., Wild, K.-P. & Winteler, A. (1993). Der “Fragebogen zum Studieninteresse” (FSI) [Study interest questionnaire]. Diagnostica, 39, 335–351. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schmitz, B., Perels, F., Bruder, S. & Otto, B. (2003). Fragebogen Selbstregulation, [Questionnaire self-regulation]. Unpublished questionnaire, TU Darmstadt, Darmstadt. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Spitzberg, B. H. & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In D. K. DeardorffEd., The sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 1–52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Spitzberg, B. H. & Cupach, W. R. (2011). Interpersonal skills. In M. L. KnappJ. A. DalyEds., Handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 481–524). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ting-Toomey, S. & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187–225. doi: 10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00004-2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • van de Vijver, F. J. R. & Leung, K. (2009). Methodological issues in researching intercultural competence. In D. K. DeardorffEd., The sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 404–418). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attribution perspective and the social psychology of perceived competence. In A. J. ElliotC. S. DweckEds., Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 73–84). New York, NY: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Weinstein, C. E. & Hume, L. M. (1998). Study strategies for lifelong learning. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wosnitza, M. (2000). Motiviertes selbstgesteuertes Lernen im Studium [Motivated self-regulated learning in university students]. Landau, Germany: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation. A social cognitive perspective. In M. BoekaertsP. R. PintrichM. ZeidnerEds., Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). London, UK: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar