Speaking with a Stranger Intercultural Classrooms Tensions And M

Speaking with a Stranger: Intercultural Classrooms' Tensions
And Managing Strategies
.Journal of College Teaching and Learning; Littleton (Sep
2011): 9-17.
An increasing number of Thai students are enrolling in
international programs recently with the expectation of real-life
intercultural learning experiences. Most teachers in intercultural
classrooms in Thailand are native English-speaking teachers
who come from different cultures and have different
perspectives. These teachers' roles, teaching styles and
relationships with their Thai students all impact instructional
success and achievement in an intercultural classroom.
Conflicts and tensions are expected in an intercultural
classroom where diverse cultures meet. In order to enhance the
quality of international education and explore classroom
interactions, relationships, and conflicts; this study used
qualitative in-depth inten'iews with 20 native Englishspeaking
teachers and 20 Thai students at four international colleges in
Thailand. The results indicate that when native English-
speaking teachers and Thai students interacted, they
encountered 3 dialectical tensions: stability/change,
openness/closedness, and separation/connection. Additionally,
they employed 6 different strategies; selection, cyclical
alteration, segmentation, integrative reframing, integrative
moderation, and indifference; to negotiate those tensions.
Keywords: Intercultural Classroom; Dialectical Tension;
Native-English Speaking Teacher; Thai Student
INTRODUCTION
An effective educational system allows people to have a higher
quality of life because higher educational attainment enables
students to have more opportunities at their desired careers.
Accordingly, most countries try to improve their educational

system in order to help their people realize their desired career
goals. The expected educational system must attempt to provide
all levels of students with high-quality and valuable
opportunities for education in order to enable them to acquire
occupational competencies (Hamilton & Hurrelmann, 1994).
Realizing the importance of job opportunities caused by the
quality of good education, international programs in Thailand
are emerging. International schools are believed to provide high
quality education because they feature rigorous academic
programs while at the same time exposing students to more
global perspectives. Students who study at international schools
are, therefore, expected to be good at cultural adaptation and
proficient in the primary language taught at schools. In
Thailand, the international education system has received a
tremendous boost due to the Thai economic boom in the early
1990s (Monthienvichienchai, Bhibulbhanuwat, Kasemsuk, &
Speece, 2002). Since then, international schools have been
increasingly prevalent along with the continuing need for
teachers who are native speakers of English. As a result,
sojourners becoming teachers in international schools in
Thailand are mostly from the native English-speaking countries:
the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand. However, not all foreign teachers
teaching in Thailand understand the cultural differences. These
cultural differences, therefore, lead to dialectical tensions
native English-speaking teachers and Thai students have in their
intercultural classroom.
Communication scholars have done extensive work exploring
dialectical tensions. Given that most studies found similar
dialectical tensions in interpersonal and organizational
relationships (Baxter, 1990; Baxter & Montgomery, 1998; Chen,
Drzewiecka, & Sias, 2001), scholars have begun to study
dialectical tensions in other contexts, including classrooms. The
purpose of this study, therefore, is to explore the dialectical
tensions and managing strategies native English-speaking
teachers and Thai students have in an intercultural classroom.

When teachers and students from different cultures meet, they
are likely to have contrasting expectations. Similar to the
dialectical tensions, strategies used to balance the tensions were
another main purpose of this study.
Dialectical Tensions
Dialectical or dialectics derived from a Greek word meaning the
art of debate (Johnson & Long, 2002). Dialectics has been
perceived as the use of contradictions to discover the truths.
The word revived again in the 19th and 20th century as a means
to study human social processes (Bakhtin, 1981, 1986).
Although the perspective of dialectics had shifted from debate
to social phenomena, it still emphasizes inherent elements of
opposition in human communication. In psychology, tension is
used to refer to conflict which occurs when differing forces of
equal strength affect a person simultaneously (Lewin, 1948). In
dialectical perspectives, Jameson (2004) defined dialectical
tensions as "opposing needs that appear mutually exclusive but
must be met simultaneously" (p. 257). Dialectical tension is
caused by any phenomena that are incompatible and negate each
other either by definitions or functions. Therefore, dialectical
tension refers to the opposing needs relational partners have in
their relationships.
Dialectical perspectives have been developed as an alternative
way of conceptualizing relationship maintenance (Baxter &
Montgomery, 1996, 1998). Most research on dialectical tensions
has explored friendships and romantic relationships (see, for
example, Baxter, 1988, 1994, 2004a; Baxter & Montgomery,
2000; Palowski, 1998). Dialectical scholars view relationship
maintenance as an ongoing struggle of dialectical tensions.
These tensions are caused by the continual presence of opposing
forces in human lives (Montgomery, 1993). Baxter and
Montgomery (1996) found that relational partners are constantly
pulled by many different binary needs and neither need is more
desirable than the other.
While many dialectical scholars use dialectical perspectives to
explain interpersonal relationships, some researchers have

applied them to study group communication. Based on
dialectical perspectives, Johnson and Long (2002) viewed group
communication process as the interplay between dialectical
tensions that could be experienced by both individual and group
level. Also, Barge (1996) examined the dialectics in group
leadership. However, he did not study the whole group
experience, but purely looking at leaders. Kramer (2004)
similarly studied dialectics in community theater group and
found that similar tensions occurred in both interpersonal and
group relationships.
Strategies to Negotiate Tensions
Along with the studies on dialectical tensions, communications
scholars had discovered approaches communicators employ to
negotiate the tensions they encounter (Baxter, 1988; Pawlowski,
1998; Rawlins, 2000). According to Rawlins (2000), friends
must negotiate their dialectical tensions with each other while
they are communicating. However, to manage the tensions is to
find a contented area between two forces instead of choosing
one from the other. Since dialectical tensions, from dialectical
perspectives, are in all relationships, examining the strategies
relationship partners use to cope with each contradiction is
important. Accordingly, Baxter (1988) proposed several
strategic responses to contradictions. The first strategy is
selection. That happens when partners select actions that
support one polarity of their contradiction. The selecti on
strategy can make a chosen action dominant, creating a
dialectical transformation. The second strategy, temporal/spatial
separation, can take two forms: cyclical alteration and
segmentation. Cyclical alteration refers to a strategy of
alternately responding to each polarity of the contradiction at
different times, while segmentation occurs when partners
mutually decide that some activities are responsive to one
polarity of a contradiction. The last strategy is integration
which consists of integrative reframing, integrative moderation,
and integrative disqualification. Integrative reframing is an
attempt to redefine a contradiction so parties do not perceive

the polarities as a contradiction. Integrative moderation is the
use of compromising messages in which both polarities of a
contradiction are partially fulfilled while integrative
disqualification refers to the use of ambiguous or indirect
messages in order to avoid explicitly supporting or disagreeing
with each polarity. The disqualification can involve content
ambiguity, speaker ambiguity, target ambiguity, and context
ambiguity (Baxter, 1988).
Even though most relationship partners encounter similar
dialectics and strategies, the negation and equilibrium of
dialectical tensions is managed differently within each
relational turning point (Pawlowski, 1998) and relationship type
(Baxter, 1994). Baxter (1990) studied how the three internal
contradictions are managed by romantic relationship parties.
The results indicate that the most frequent strategy to cope with
the autonomy-connection contradiction is cyclical alternation
while segmentation is the most frequent strategy used to manage
the predictability-novelty and the openness-closedness
contradiction.
The strategies used to manage dialectical tensions in
interpersonal relationships and group contexts include a variety
of explicit and implicit communication acts such as discussion
or avoidance. However, those strategies might not be effective
in every context including an intercultural classroom.
Therefore, it is interesting to explore whether strategies native
English-speaking teachers and Thai students use to manage the
dialectical tensions in an intercultural classroom would be
identical or dissimilar to those previously found in other
contexts. The research questions of this study, consequently,
were "What dialectical tensions do native English-speaking
teachers and Thai students encounter in intercultural
classrooms?" and "What strategies do native English-speaking
teachers and Thai students use in order to manage those
tensions?"
METHODOLOGY
The participants of this study were divided into two groups: 20

native English-speaking teachers and 20 Thai students. Both
groups had to teach/study in an intercultural classroom at an
undergraduate level in Thailand for at least a year. All 40
participants were interviewed individually. After the interviews,
a coding process with constant comparison was used to analyze
the data. In order to increase the confidentiality, pseudonyms
were applied to all participants in this study.
FINDINGS
Based on interview data, native English-speaking teachers and
Thai students encountered three main dialectical tensions which
were stability/change, openness/closedness, and
separation/connection.
1. Stability/Change
The first dialectical tension that native English-speaking
teachers and Thai students encountered in intercultural
classrooms is the contradiction of stability/change which is the
dilemma between the need for a classroom to be stable,
unchangeable and predictable and the need for it to be flexible,
novel and unpredictable. Some native English-speaking teachers
and Thai students preferred the orderliness of the class. Thai
students liked an intercultural classroom because the class was
well-organized and everything was stated in the outline. Ben
was one of the teachers who preferred having a planned class.
He said, "The beginning of my class, I had PowerPoint and I go
through step 1 to 3, how I do my schedule, how I do my testing,
when midterm is, when final is. I put the makeup ahead of
time." Similarly, Nitipong also liked a predictable classroom.
The following statement shows his great appreciation of a
planned class:
The teacher gave us the course outline since the first day of the
class and he explained everything to us. Native English-
speaking teachers strictly follow the outline. They try to control
the content, start and stop the class on time. They've never
made up the class just because they couldn't cover the content
in time. This is what I like. They 're very punctual so I know
exactly when the class will be done. Nitipong

Even though some students accepted that stability made a
classroom more structured, some Thai students preferred having
a flexible and fluid class where teachers were less strict about
the rules. Vanida said that native English-speaking teachers
were kinder and less strict compared to Thai teachers. Apart
from the flexibility, native English-speaking teachers and Thai
students also looked for creativity and novelty although a nice
and orderly classroom requires some routine and structure. In
spite of the high praise for predictability, some Thai students
found that it is boring. Kittipan said, "His [My teacher's] class
strictly adheres to the course syllabus so he tries to cover
everything he planned. He has never been off the topic. I like
him to deviate from the planned topic because the lecture is
sometimes boring." William is another teacher who realized the
boredom of predictability. As a result, he did not need a course
syllabus for his class. Consider his statement:
There is no official printed syllabus. I do announce at the
beginning what I'm gonna do. I tiy not to do any lectures in that
class, but it comes up with other types of things that require
students to be prepared for. William
2. Openness/Closedness
The second dialectical tension encountered by native English-
speaking teachers and Thai students is openness/closedness
which is the opposing poles between the need for disclosure and
secrecy within the teacher-student relationships. Native
English-speaking teachers and Thai students had to balance
between how much privacy they shared between each other.
Some native English-speaking teachers revealed that their
relationship with Thai students were professional because they
did not share their personal issues to each other. Consider
Trent's statement:
My relationship with my students is purely professional and not
personal... I am comfortable with our professional relationship.
I think it is most appropriate. If they have personal issues, they
should talk about those with a guidance counselor who is
trained to help with those kinds of issues. Trent

Another form of the openness/closedness tension is when native
English-speaking teachers and Thai students have to balance
between how direct they should be to each other. Pongsak chose
not to be open to his native English-speaking teachers because
it might affect his grade. He said, "No way, I will never tell my
teacher I have something I don't like about them because my
grade is in his hand." As opposed to Thai students who were
very protective in terms of expressing their true feelings
towards the teachers, most native English-speaking teachers
were very direct and expressive when it came to the needed
time. Consider Surasak's statement:
He will say what he thinks even if it's not a good thing. He told
me what I should change. He gave me advice. I know this is a
college level, but I still want to have some advice. I don't like a
teacher who criticizes but doesn 't advice. I don't mind being
criticized, but at least let me know what 1 should do next.
Surasak
3. Separation/Connection
Native English-speaking teachers and Thai students also have
the separation/connection tension which is the contradiction
between whether to be close or stay distant to each other. Many
native English-speaking teachers were trying to find the reason
why Thai students usually remained distant from them. Some
teachers proposed some possible explanations of the distance
which are culture, language, age and personality. The following
are their statements:
That possibly would have to be farang, possibly cultural.
Outside the class, I never got any e-mails from students asking
about anything outside the lesson. But I forced myself to talk to
them after class. I give them a project to do here on a campus
and they were down in the canteen, clumped together on the
table so I got the coffee and sat in the middle of the group
whether they like it or not. It didn't last long. We all found an
excuse and got up and left. Oliver
In an intercultural classroom, teachers and students are from
different cultures so they may not feel comfortable to be close

to each other. Wanchai admitted that in a classroom, he was
trying to keep distance from his teacher especially when he
chose his seating. Wanchai said:
I will try to stay away from the teacher as much as possible
(laugh). I think we've trained to not be too confident. So in
class I prefer sitting in the back row. Sitting in the front is too
close to the teacher. If the teacher doesn't have anyone answer,
there is a high chance for the frontage to be called. Wanchai
In order to improve an international classroom and the
relationships between native English-speaking teachers and Thai
students, tension management is needed. Six strategies were
found to be used by native English-speaking teachers and Thai
students to balance their dialectical tensions. The 6 strategies
consist of selection, cyclical alteration, segmentation,
integrative reframing, integrative moderation, and indifference.
4. Selection
The first strategy native English-speaking teachers and Thai
students used to manage the dialectical tensions they
encountered in an intercultural classroom was selection.
Selection is used when individuals repeatedly select actions
consistent with one pole of the contradiction. Some native
English-speaking teachers used selection to negotiate the
stability/change tension. Chris revealed the dominance of only
predictability in his teaching. His class was much planned even
for the exam. He prepared his students with the questions so
they would know in advance what they would see in the exam.
Look at Chris' statement:
I have to prepare my students very carefully for their exam
because I had samples of students who obviously don 7
understand the questions. They couldn 7 read. So I work very
close with them so my students do very well in the exam
because they've seen the questions before. I don 7 want to make
somebody have a bad mark because they don 7 understand the
questions. Chris
Another example of the use of selection strategy was when
Surasak admitted that he emphasized concealment in his

relationship with the teacher because he had never trusted any
teacher enough to talk about his personal life. Similarly, Atita
selected closedness to be dominant when she managed the
openness/closedness tension. She made protectiveness dominant
in her relationship with her native English-speaking teacher
because she did not want to be direct with him. Consider her
situation:
I've not told the teacher to use PowerPoint or let him know I
don 7 understand his lecture. I just borrow my friend's note.
When he speaks too fast, I don 7 tell him to slow down. I don 7
think it's appropriate to tell him directly. Atita
5. Cyclical alteration
Cyclical alteration was another strategy that native English-
speaking teachers and Thai students used to manage their
dialectical tensions. This strategy is used when individuals
alternate the response to each force of the contradiction over
time. The native English-speaking teachers and Thai students
might balance their tensions by switching both poles through
time. Ben used cyclical alteration to manage the
stability/change tension when he was strict and predictable at
the beginning of the class while he became more flexible and
fluid later on. He said, "In Thailand, I would suggest be a little
bit tough and strict at the beginning. If you're too nice at the
beginning, they're taking advantage. But if you're tough at the
beginning, you will have no problems." Piya is another
participant who revealed the use of cyclical alteration with his
stability/change tension. He thought that native English-
speaking teachers should be strict in class and be flexible after
class. The following is Piya's statement:
Native English-speaking teachers should maintain their western
standard in class so Thai students will realize the difference
between Thai and international program. There is no need to
come to international schools if everything in the classroom is
the same. If they set a higher standard, students will be more
active. However, teachers should be more flexible after class so
Thai students will be more comfortable to talk to them. Piya

Apiradee is another participant who also used cyclical alteration
to manage the separation/connection tension. She revealed that
she was close to her native English-speaking teacher only after
class and maintained the distance from him while she was at
school. Apiradee said:
My close friend used to ask the teacher out for dinner and a
drink and I went with her. I think it's ok because when we
weren 7 at school, he's not a teacher and we 're not students.
But at school, we shouldn 7 be so close. Apiradee
6. Segmentation
The third strategy used by native English-speaking teachers and
Thai students to balance their dialectical tensions was
segmentation. Segmentation is used when individuals tie one
force to a specific activity rather than consistently responding
to it in all situations. Although native English-speaking teachers
thought both stability and change were important, they decided
to be flexible in some situations and retained their stability in
others. Louis used segmentation strategy to manage the
stability/change tension between how fixed and fluid he should
be with his students' language. Here is Louis' statement:
On the exam I realize one you have a small amount of time.
Secondly, their English varies so I don't really... as long as I
can understand you. There is a certain level you have to read
and I have to understand. I try to understand them but sometime
the word may be not right but I try to give them credit or partial
credit if I don 7 understand it. On the written assignment, I
expect a better...On those projects, good English is more
important but on the exam I don't care. Louis
Louis was extremely rigid regarding the correctness of English
only if it was the written assignment while he was flexible if it
was an exam. Similarly, Nicolas revealed that the level of
freedom he offered to his students depended on the subject.
Here is Nicolas' statement:
They do have complete choice on their term projects. They can
choose whatever they want as long as it's within the context.
The business plan research that they do is completely their

choice and that is worth 100% of their grade. And I think also
the course itself dictates how much freedom the students have.
Like the research class, you can't constraint them that's what
research has to do. You let them go to find something
interesting and they want to chase for. I don't even care if they
come to class as long as they get the work done. It's very
different from class to class. Nicolas
7. Integrative Reframing
The fourth strategy was integrative reframing. This strategy is
used when individuals attempt to redefine the contradiction and
transcend it. The native English-speaking teachers and Thai
students also used integrative reframing strategy when they
redefined the tension in order to avoid supporting or disagreeing
with either contradictory pole. Atita managed her
separation/connection tension by using integrative reframing.
Instead of defining her relationship with the teacher as either
distance or intimacy, Atita redefined it as a respect relationship.
Using integrative reframing strategy, separation/connection was
no longer a tension for her. The following is Atita's statement:
I want our relationship to be respect. If native English-speaking
teachers are too intimate with their students, some students will
be rude to them. But if the relationship is too formal, Thai
students who have poor English skills won't talk to native
English-speaking teachers. I love to have a respect relationship
with them. Atita
8. Integrative moderation
The fifth strategy to manage the dialectical tension used in an
intercultural classroom was integrative moderation. This
strategy is used when individuals use neutral messages to
support both forces. Some native English-speaking teachers
made an effort to partially fulfill both stability and change.
Consider Oliver's statement:
If the class is too flexible, they will fall all over the plac e and
you would get nothing back. So I find structure will work best
because first of all the Thai students have directions. They
know how to build on. They 're allowed certain freedom and I

think they 're very happy having a form to fit to...I'm not just
like another teacher who just got off the airplane, is here to
revolutionize the world and he's going to change you. I'm very
accepting of Thai culture, Thai ways, Thai thinking, however, I
got a job to do too... I think if you come to Thailand with an
attitude of wanting to learn and to adapt, just more than being a
teacher, the students will respond a lot to that too. Oliver
Oliver allowed both stability and change in his class. He offered
his students' freedom within his fixed structure. Also, Oliver
realized he had a job to teach, but was also willing to adapt to
his students.
9. Indifference
The last strategy native English-speaking teachers and Thai
students used to manage dialectical tensions is indifference.
Rather than viewing both poles as equally important, an
individual just ignores them. Ben unfolded his situation when
he had to manage the stability/change tension whether he should
be strict or flexible about the language used among his Thai
students in the classroom. He said:
I just ignore when they speak to one another whether it's in Thai
or English. It's like two Americans tiy to speak French to each
other. It's like they try to be hi-so or something and they don't
feel comfortable with. I quit tiying to fight getting them to
speak. Ben
In order to manage the stability and change tension, Ben chose
to ignore the situation so it would not be a tension anymore.
Likewise, some Thai students did not pay attention to whether
the class was predictable or flexible. They only came to class
and did not care how the class was structured. Apiradee said, "I
don't want to suggest anything to the course because teachers
should teach what they want to teach. They have the absolute
right to design their course. Students are expected to study what
they teachers have prepared." Surasak is another student who
used indifference as a strategy to manage the stability/change
tension. Consider his statement:
He gave the course syllabus in the first class, but I lost it

already. I don't need the course syllabus because I go to every
class and I can study in class. I don 7 have to prepare for
anything. I will just listen to what he teaches each week.
Surasak
DISCUSSION
For the first research question, "What dialectical tensions do
native English-speaking teachers and Thai students encounter in
intercultural classrooms?," the interview data exposed 3
dialectical tensions including stability/change,
openness/closedness, and separation/connection. These 3
dialectical tensions have been repeatedly identified as important
dialectics in human relationships (Baxter & Montgomery,
1998). Although these three tensions were previously found in
interpersonal relationships, they are also prevalent in a
classroom. The dialectical tensions native English-speaking
teachers and Thai students encountered in an intercultural
classroom are one relational force against the other force, rather
than a teacher against a student. A relational tension is
conceptually located within an interpersonal relationship.
Rather than being a source of antagonis m between relational
partners, relational dialectics reside in the relationship and
indicate a connection, born through relational tensions, between
the two people (Baxter & Montgomery, 2000). These forces
result in teacher-student relationships. They are like turning
points determining new directions and divergent paths for
relationships. There is no finite set of contradiction found in
relationships. The infinite possibilities, for relational
contradictions, depend on cultural and relational contexts.
Consequently, dialectical tensions found in this study might not
be the same as those found in other settings.
For the second research question, "What strategies do native
English-speaking teachers and Thai students use in order to
manage those tensions?, the study indicated that both native
English-speaking teachers and Thai students applied six
strategies to negotiate different dialectical tensions as shown in
Table 1.

The interview data revealed that different strategies were used
to manage different dialectical tensions. For the dialectic of
stability/change, participants employed selection, segmentation,
cyclical alteration, integrative moderation, and indifference to
manage the tension. For the openness/closedness tension,
selection, and segmentation were used whereas every managing
strategy except indifference was used to manage the
separation/connection tension.
Table 1: Intercultural classroom's dialectical tensions and
managing strategies
Among the six strategies, selection and segmentation were used
the most by native English-speaking teachers and Thai students.
The possible explanation for the extensive use of selection
could be its explicitness. Individuals who only need one
polarity of the dialectics may experience less tension than those
who need both ends (McGuire, 2001). In order to encounter less
tension, there was a need to make one action dominant.
Gollwitzer (1987) …
THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION IN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION
Mary Hinchcliff-Pelias
Associate Professor of Speech Communication
Southern Illinois University at CarbondaleNorman S. Greer
Associate Professor of Speech Communication Eastern Illinois
University
International education should, by defi nition, assume
intercultural communication interactions. If this is not the case,
then what is the point? Why would those who study
internationally place themselves in an educational environment
that does not expect and afford opportunities for interaction

with persons from culturally different backgrounds? From the
standpoint of intercultural communication educators, we fi nd
the idea of isolation of international students from their host
national counterparts and other international students
philosophically and pedagogically
untenable.INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND
PERCEIVED DIFFERENCE
Intercultural communication involves the interaction of persons
from cultural communities that are different. The perception of
difference is often a defi ning component of intercultural
communication (Brislin, 1994; Dodd, 1998; Gudyku nst, 1988;
Gudykunst & Kim, 1992). Brislin (1994) articulated some of
these differences:
…the others possess many qualities summarized by the word
different. The others speak various languages, have different
skin colors, possess an array of attitudes toward important
aspects of life such as work and recreation, eat different foods,
and so forth. (p. 25)
Gudykunst and Kim (1992) used the metaphor of the “stranger”
to refer to persons perceived as culturally different from
ourselves. They stated that “(t)he term stranger is somewhat
ambiguous in that it is often used to refer to aliens, intruders,
foreigners, outsiders, newcomers, and immigrants, as well as
any person who is unknown and unfamiliar” (p. 19). In
intercultural interactions, these perceived differences may be
suffi cient to make the participants uncomfortable, embarrassed,
fearful and/or unwilling to engage in such
communication.INTERNATIONAL STUDENT POPULATIONS
According to recent fi gures reported by the Institute of
International Education (IIE) (2003), during the period of 2002-
2003, more than 586,000 international students were studying in
the U.S. The IIE places the number of U.S. students studying
overseas during 20012002 at a little over 160,000. Additionally,
numerous other students from many nations sojourn
internationally to educational institutions throughout the world.
Thus, in recent years, upwards of three-quarters of a million

students have been in the position to interact with other
international students and host nationals in intercultural
contexts. But many of these international sojourners do not
interact or have limited interactions with culturally different
others. The reasons for the lack of social exchange are
undoubtedly many, including such factors as the aforementioned
perceptions attendant to viewing the culturally different as a
“stranger,” as well as lack of networking opportunities within
the campus/local community, language barriers, social skills,
time constraints, and separation/isolation in residential
facilities.
Individual personality traits as well as other psychological
factors may also work against international students seeking out
intercultural interactions. Many international students
experience culture shock, which may preclude or severely limit
interactions with culturally different others. Oberg (1960), the
scholar credited with coining the term “cultural shock,” viewed
it as a generalized trauma affecting individuals when placed in a
new and unfamiliar culture. The stress and anxieties associated
with culture shock are the result of persons losing those things
familiar to them for their day-to-day social interactions, such as
rules associated with language interaction (verbal and
nonverbal) and cultural conventions and norms (Garza-
Guerrero, 1974; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Oberg). In essence, an
individual’s entire way of understanding her/his world may be
turned on end. The effects of culture shock can be lingering and
result in further isolation of international students from their
host culture peers. Additionally, limited social interactions,
especially those between international students and their host
national counterparts, may well refl ect understandings from
both sides regarding how international students are perceived.
Negative Perceptions of International Students
Research specifi cally focused on international students enrolled
at colleges and universities in the U.S. provides evidence that
many host nationals hold negative perceptions of international

students as a group. Spencer-Rogers & McGovern (2002)
explained:
…a prevalent view exists of foreign students as outsiders who
are culturally maladjusted, naive, and confused. They are seen
as psychologically unbalanced individuals who suffer from a
“foreign student syndrome,” a controversial condition
characterized by a disheveled appearance, a passive and
withdrawn interpersonal style, and a multitude of psychosomatic
ailments. (p. 613)
Negative Intercultural Encounters
Intercultural interactions have been characterized as producing
anxiety (Ekachai, Hinchcliff-Pelias, & Greer, 1998; Stephan &
Stephan, 1985), uncertainty and/or diffi culty in interpreting
interlocuters’ intentions (Chen, 2002; Gudykunst, 1988;
Gudykunst & Kim, 1992), frustration (Ekachai, Hinchcliff-
Pelias, & Greer; Hinchcliff-Pelias, 2003), and hurt and fear
(Bresnahan & Cai, 2000; Hinchcliff-Pelias). Most likely,
contributing to these unsatisfactory interactions are negative
attributions ascribed to international students by host national
peers and instructors, including descriptors of these students as
withdrawn, insular, and socially inhibited (Spencer-Rogers,
2001) and educationally inadequate and/or behaviorally
inappropriate in classroom situations (Lind, 2002;
Mestenhauser, 1983). It is not surprising, then to fi nd that
international students often limit their social interactions with
host nationals and spend more time with co-nationals (Paige,
1990, Pedersen, 1991; Rajapaksa & Dundes, 2002-2003;
Spencer-Rogers).
Positive Outcomes of International Interactions
Of course, not all intercultural interactions between
international students and host nationals (and with other
international students) have negative outcomes. Although the
participants may report awkwardness and misunderstandings in
their encounters, the benefi ts of such interactions may be

viewed as balancing or exceeding the costs. Scott’s (1998)
study of a group of Thai exchange students found that they
experienced signifi cant personal growth in terms of self-confi
dence and enhanced independence as a result of their stay with
host families in the U.S. Hinchcliff-Pelias (2003) reported that
students believed they gained important knowledge about
others’ cultural perspectives and developed self-effi cacy
related to their communication skills as a result of their
intercultural interactions. In their study of university students’
intercultural interactions, Ekachai, Hinchcliff-Pelias & Greer
(1998) found that some students confronted and re-assessed
their negative stereotypes of culturally different others as a
result of those interactions. Additionally, many studies have
noted the connection between social networks (including co-
nationals, other international students, and host nationals) in
international students’ successful adaptation and adjustment to
their new cultural environments (Bresnahan & Cai, 2000;
Heikinheimo & Shute, 1986; Kim, 1994; Pedersen, 1991;
Rajapaksa & Dundes, 20022003; Zimmerman, 1995).PURPOSE
OF THE STUDY
As intercultural communication educators, we want to reconcile
our belief that intercultural communication interaction is an
essential element in the education of students who study
internationally with our recognition that this form of
communication interaction may be a daunting and diffi cult
undertaking. Thus, we conducted the present study to increase
our understanding of contributing factors that may inform
international students’ hesitancy to engage in intercultural
interactions. We posed the following research questions:
RQ1: How do international students characterize their
reluctance to engage in intercultural communication
interactions?
RQ2: What barriers do international students perceive for
effective intercultural communication interactions?
RQ3: What do international students believe might be done to
facilitate effective intercultural communication interactions?

We acknowledge that many intercultural interactions result in
positive outcomes; however, we limited our focus to factors that
preclude effective or satisfying encounters between culturally
different others in order to address the research questions for
this study. For this research we defi ned “international students”
as those individuals who study in nations other than their self-
identifi ed permanent nation of residence. Additionally, we defi
ned “intercultural interactions/encounters” to specify those
which the study participants characterized as communications
with persons whom they perceived as culturally different from
themselves.
Data Collection and Analysis
We collected data for this study though extensive interviews,
using focus groups (Morgan, 1993; Stewart & Shamdasani,
1990; Vaughn, Schumm & Sinagub, 1996), one-to-one
interviews (Patton, 1990), and collection of students’ written
personal narratives. The fi rst author conducted individual
interviews and collected written narratives from students
studying internationally at two European universities, in France
and in Spain. The focus group interviews were conducted by
both authors and a research assistant at a Midwestern U.S.
university. Data were analyzed through content analysis (Holsti,
1969) of dominant manifest and emergent themes.
Study Participants
We collected information from 64 students from 20 nations. The
students were pursuing a variety of academic majors. The
students, enrolled in undergraduate and master’s degree
programs at their respective universities at the time of the
interviews, were from the following nations: Austria, Belgium,
Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Finland, Germany, Haiti,
India, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Moldova, Morocco, Puerto Rico,
Republic of China, Spain, Sri Lanka, Turkey, United States, and
Venezuela.
We did not expect nor do we present the international students’

responses reported in this study to be representative of their
national cultures. However, we consider these international
students to be representative of a contemporary “international
student” culture, comprised as it is of a group of people
engaged in education in university cultural environments,
learning alongside others whose national cultures are different
from their own. This conceptualization of an international
student culture aligns well with Hofstede’s (2001) observation
regarding what constitutes a culture:
The word culture is usually reserved for societies
(operationalized as nations or as ethnic or regional groups
within or across nations). Basically, the word can be applied to
any human collectivity or category: an organization, a
profession, an age group, an entire gender, or a family. (p. 10)
The results of the interviews with these 64 international
students are presented in the following section.RESULTS
RQ1: Reluctance to Engage in Intercultural Communication
Our fi rst research question focused on international students’
characterizations of their hesitancy to engage in intercultural
communication interactions. Consistent with previous research
fi ndings, the international students viewed their interactions as
having positive and negative outcomes, oftentimes as a result of
the same encounter. However, their reasons for not seeking out
further intercultural interactions focus on the negative outcomes
they had experienced.
Every one of the 64 students interviewed articulated one or
more negative experiences related to their past and present
intercultural interactions. Many of the students had refl ected on
their negative experiences and had attempted to understand the
reasons for the problems they encountered. The students’ sense-
making related to their negative intercultural experiences
clustered around the themes of self inadequacies, others’
inadequacies, and contextual constraints.
Self inadequacies. The students’ perceptions of self
inadequacies surfaced in self attributions regarding their

personal shortcoming as intercultural communicators (e.g.,
incompetence in a foreign language, lack of knowledge about
the other’s culture, unwillingness to place self in an
uncomfortable position, nervousness, impatience, and overall
poor communication skills). Additionally, several students
reported that they had arrived at their international educational
destinations with unrealistic expectations regarding their
abilities to fi t in and do well in the new environment.
Confronted with this self-perceived lack of success at fi tting
in, they found themselves frustrated and angry with themselves,
which in turn often made them resent their host-national
counterparts. They understood that this contributed to a
negative spiral that kept them isolated from culturally different
others. When they did interact, they felt that the conversations
were often uncomfortable—forced and superfi cial—resulting in
feelings of being treated as a “patronized foreigner.” Some of
the students stated that they resorted to what they knew would
be perceived as negative behaviors in the classroom: passivity
as well as aggression, especially when they thought they were
being excluded or patronized by classmates and/or professors.
Many of the international students reported that they became
impatient and upset when classmates and professors asked them
to respond to a question as a representative of “thei r people” or
culture. Ironically, however, several of the international
students noted that they sometimes prefaced their comments
with statements such as “in my country, we do X…”
Other’s inadequacies. In addition to recognizing how their own
inadequacies contributed to unsatisfactory intercultural
interactions, the international students placed responsibility for
problematic communication on their intercultural counterparts.
The negative attributes most often articulated by the
international students regarding their intercultural partners
focused on their lack of interest in learning about the other,
stereotyping, cultural insensitivity, and failure to disclose
information that cued misunderstandings. Many of the students
observed that host nationals seemed too busy or disinterested in

getting to know them as individuals. One student noted, “When
I arrived here, I became ‘someone from Germany.’” The
implication is that he wanted to be recognized as more than his
home country. In classroom discussions and activities, many of
the international students reported feeling isolated and ignored
by their classmates. Particularly diffi cult and unsatisfactory
intercultural interactions were related to small-group work. One
student made the following observation:
I get a little sick in my stomach when the professor tells us to
work in groups in the class. I see my classmates—the American
students—trying to get into groups without me…they do not
even try to listen to me and they never ask me about my ideas. I
stopped trying to talk in the group because it hurt me that they
ignored me.
Several of the international students stated that they believed
host nationals held negative stereotypes about foreign students
generally and their particular group specifi cally. In addition to
unsatisfactory interactions with host nationals, some of the
students reported they had negative intercultural interactions
with other international students. One student noted,
“…sometimes it seems we are in competition to be the ‘best
foreign students’ on campus.”
Issues related to cultural insensitivity were raised by the
international students as well. While many of the students
recognized that they were expected to and needed to adapt to
their new cultural environments, they lamented the fact that
persons in their host cultures were not more sensitive to the
signifi cant distress that such adaptation could cause
international students. This was especially evident when the
students expressed their needs to maintain certain cultural
customs and practices while living in another culture,
particularly those related to dress, foods, family matters, and
religious observations. A particularly egregious display of
cultural insensitivity noted by many of the international
students was when members of other cultural groups categorized
them into cultural aggregates (e.g., “the Asians”). Additionally,

and related to this issue, some of the students reported that they
resented being misidentifi ed as a member of a cultural group
other than their own based on their physical appearance.
The international students acknowledged that their own
language inadequacies and/or misunderstandings were a factor
in problematic cross-cultural communication interactions.
However, they also placed blame for these problems on their
intercultural partners. The students noted that their intercultural
partners often failed to ask for clarifi cation or checked to see if
they were being understood in conversations. Thus, the
international students saw this as failure on their interlocutor’s
part to disclose information that could prevent or clear up
misunderstandings.
The international students also observed that negative
unsatisfactory intercultural interactions were due, in part, to
contextual factors. Most often, they blamed unnatural situations
(e.g., classroom exercises, planned social interactions) where
spontaneity was missing from the encounters and their
interactions felt rushed, forced, and uncomfortable. Some of the
students indicated that host city, local elementary schools, and
university-sponsored “international fairs” were contexts for
unsatisfactory intercultural communication interactions. These
students characterized these activities as “degrading” to all
involved and felt forced to interact with culturally different
others in situations that seemed both artifi cial and superfi cial.
These students observed that the contrived social interactions
actually did more harm than good in that they focused too much
on the surface, visible parts of culture (i.e., foods, clothing,
traditional dance, slide shows of the country, etc.), thus
glossing over deeper, more important aspects of the cultures
they were trying to get the participants to understand and
appreciate. Two comments from international students regarding
these activities illustrate this point:
…I’m proud of my culture and I enjoy sharing information
about it, but I felt reduced to “the man who uses chopsticks.”
…painting henna on the hands of American girls loses its charm

after a while.
Additionally, several of the students discussed classroom
contexts where intercultural interactions proved to be
unsatisfactory for international students. Class and group
projects where extensive outside-of-class interactions were
expected as well as in-class discussions where language
problems became apparent were articulated by several of the
study participants as causing anxiety and distress and ultimately
leading to unsatisfactory intercultural interactions.
RQ2: Barriers for Effective Intercultural Communication
Interactions
Many of the students’ observations presented in the previous
section point to obstacles that may preclude effective and
satisfying intercultural encounters. When asked to specifi cally
address what they thought were barriers to effective
intercultural encounters, the international students emphasized
the diffi culties associated with communicating in a language
for which at least one of the participants is a second language.
One student noted, “As an international student, language is the
biggest obstacle—you can’t freely express yourself.”
Misunderstandings due to language differences and the
frustrations associated with inabilities to communicate in a
common language were discussed by the international students
as having immense negative consequences —enough to
discontinue or preclude future interactions.
Attitudinal dispositions, characterized as ethnocentrism, were
also seen as creating barriers for communication. Most of the
international students recognized that ethnocentrism is not just
located in the other; both parties take their perspectives into the
communication interactions. As one student stated: “we can get
caught in the ‘my culture is better than your culture’ game.”
Associated with their understanding of ethnocentrism as a
contributing factor to negative intercultural interactions, some
of the students stated that they believed their physical
appearance (i.e., looking “different”) was likely a barrier to

intercultural interactions. Additionally, in-group/out-group
distinctions made when students confi ned their social
interactions to people from their own cultures were often
interpreted by the students as a lack of interest in others’
cultures. One international student articulated his frustration
with this phenomenon:
What intercultural communication? I would like to get to know
some of the other students here from different countries, but
they only want to be with their own people…the Americans
hang out with other Americans, the Spanish with other Spanish,
the Italians with the Italians, and so forth.
However, many of the international students noted that they
also did this and understood the importance and the comfort of
their heritage culture social networks.
The media were also identifi ed by the international students as
posing barriers to satisfactory intercultural communication,
especially their depictions of certain cultural groups. The
students pointed to the media’s role in perpetuating stereotypes.
One student articulated his frustration related to this issue:
I think the students here, in particular, the females, believe
everything they see on television…they think an Arab man isn’t
someone to get to know.
Many of the international students reported that they are often
persuaded by the negative media coverage of certain cultural
groups but also recognize that they do not seek out alternative
understandings unless their assumptions are challenged.
RQ3: What Might Be Done to Facilitate Effective Intercultural
Communication Interactions?
Being mindful, thinking before you speak, trying to learn about
and appreciate others’ cultural customs and ways of thinking,
and addressing one’s own biases towards culturally different
others were often suggested by the international students when
posed with this question. The international students who
participated in this study articulated several areas for
improvement (by self and others) that could facilitate
intercultural communication interactions. They stressed the

importance of developing knowledge beyond the superfi cial
about the culture of others. The need for direct experiences that
allow extended contact with culturally different others in
natural, spontaneous contexts was another area consistently
discussed by the international students. Additionally, they
discussed the importance of adaptability in intercultural
situations. One international student explained the measures she
had taken in trying to be more open to intercultural
communication experiences:
Sometimes I just have to bite my tongue to keep from saying,
“that’s not how we do it in America,” but I am trying to keep an
open mind, even when I’m not comfortable with the way people
do things here.
The students reported that some of their most diffi cult
intercultural interactions were those in which their ideas,
attitudes, and beliefs were called into question—both in the
moment by their intercultural partners and later through
personal introspection stimulated by those encounters. A
recurring theme across the students’ responses was the need to
refl ect on diffi cult intercultural interactions and then to make
the commitment to learn from them. In effect, the students
suggested a “no pain, no gain” approach for enhancing
intercultural communication effectiveness. This echoed some of
the students’ observations that it was necessary for people to
come to terms with their apprehension related to communicating
with culturally different others. Many of the international
students observed that effective, satisfying intercultural
interactions cannot take place unless the parties involved
recognize and free themselves of pre-conceived notions
regarding persons from cultures other than their own.
In addition to taking personal responsibility for facilitating
effective intercultural interactions, the students indicated that
better efforts could be made by educational institutions to
educate their constituencies about the importance and benefi ts
of intercultural interactions. They suggested that university-
sponsored “intercultural forums” in which people from different

cultural backgrounds could hold conversations on topics of
mutual interest be used to replace and/or supplement
international fairs. They also stated that bringing people from
disparate cultural backgrounds together more frequently, in
non-threatening and more “natural” environments, could be a
signifi cant step in increasing the effectiveness of intercultural
interactions. DISCUSSION
We undertook the present study to gain information related to
international students’ perspectives on the problems that
accompany communicating interculturally. Specifi cally, we
wanted to know why these students elect to limit or not engage
in interactions with culturally different others. Additionally, we
asked them to consider what might facilitate effective,
satisfying intercultural encounters. The students offered
insights related to intercultural interactants’ knowledge,
attitudes, and behaviors that led to negative outcomes in
intercultural encounters. Additionally, they spoke of the many
obstacles they and their intercultural partners face, and they
offered suggestions that could address many of the problems
attendant to unsatisfying intercultural interactions.
Interactions between culturally different individuals involve
complex understandings, dispositions, and abilities that must be
learned and enacted for mutual satisfaction. As educators of
international students, we are in a position to guide this
learning. The international students who participated in this
study identifi ed many of the problems inherent in intercultural
interactions. We can address these issues in our classroom and
our educational communities. We can fi nd ways to ask our
international students to refl ect on the cultural assumptions
they hold. Furthermore, we can engage them in learning that
allows them to increase their knowledge, form positive
attitudes, and develop effective behaviors related to
communicating with culturally different others. These are
worthy goals to be embraced by educators who work with
international students. Anthropologist and communication
scholar Edward T. Hall (1989) made this point quite eloquently:

…one of the many paths to enlightenment is the discovery of
ourselves, and this can be achieved whenever one truly knows
others who are different.” (p. 8)
It is important for our students to continue to make the
commitment to engage in international study. The benefi ts
accrued will have lasting and important results. Helping our
students understand and work through their diffi culties as
intercultural interactants is a challenge that we should be
prepared to meet.
REFERENCES
Bresnahan, M.J., & Cai, D.H. (2000). From the other side of the
desk: Conversations with international students about teaching
in the U.S. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 65-
76.
Brislin, R.W. (1994). Working cooperatively with people from
different cultures. In R.W. Brislin & T. Yoshida (Eds.),
Improving intercultural interactions: Modules for cross-cultural
training programs (pp. 17-33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chen, L. (2002). Perceptions of intercultural interaction and
communication satisfaction: A study on initial encounters.
Communication Reports, 15(2), 133-147.
Dodd, C.H. (1998). Dynamics of intercultural communication
(5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Ekachai, D., Hinchcliff-Pelias, M., & Greer, N.S. (1998).
Artifacts of intercultural communication between U.S. and
international university students. In K.S. Sitaran & M. Prosser
(Eds.), Civic discourse: Multiculturalism, cultural diversity, and
global communication (pp. 297-309). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Garza-Guerrero, A. (1974). Culture shock: Its mourning and the
vicissitudes of identity. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
Association, 22, 408-429.
Gudykunst, W.B. (1988). Uncertainty and anxiety. In Y.Y. Kim
& W.B. Gudykunst (Eds.),Theories in intercultural
communication (pp. 123-156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W.B., & Kim, Y.Y. (1992). Communicating with
strangers: An approach to …

Speaking with a Stranger Intercultural Classrooms Tensions And M

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Speaking with a Stranger Intercultural Classrooms Tensions And M

Similar to Speaking with a Stranger Intercultural Classrooms Tensions And M (20)

More from ChereCheek752

More from ChereCheek752 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Speaking with a Stranger Intercultural Classrooms Tensions And M