BYRAM VERSUS BENNETT: DISCREPANCIES IN THE ... - CERCLL

Proceedings of Intercultural Competence Conference September, 2012, Vol. 2, pp. 11-33 

http://cercll.arizona.edu 

BYRAM VERSUS BENNETT: DISCREPANCIES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF 

LEARNERS’ IC DEVELOPMENT 

Paula Garrett-Rucks 

Georgia State University 

email: prucks@gsu.edu 

Researchers in pursuit of best practices to foster cultural understanding in instructed foreign 

language (FL) learning often measure changes in learners’ intercultural competence (IC) in 

response to pedagogical interventions. The purpose of this paper is to provide 1) a brief 

overview of different types of definitions of and assessment tools for intercultural 

competence found in the literature, 2) an argument for qualitative studies to investigate IC 

development and 3) a comparison of the merits of two of the most commonly cited IC 

models in the literature—Byram’s (1997) multimodal model of intercultural competence and 

Bennett’s (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. The findings I present 

here come from a larger study in which I used both models to analyze the changes in 

beginning French language learners’ worldviews in weekly online classroom discussions 

centering on the French cultural practices of greetings, education and family life over the 

course of a 16 week semester. I present the discrepancies I found post-hoc in my data 

analysis—the instances where the same learners’ worldviews were interpreted differently 

according to the criteria defined in Byram and Bennett’s models—and then I speak to the 

merits of each model within the limitations of my study. 

INTRODUCTION 

The need to understand languages and cultures other than one's own has become of 

paramount importance in the increasingly multicultural nature of industrialized societies. As a 

profession, foreign language (FL) educators have responded to the need to prepare learners to 

understand languages, cultures and worldviews other than their own. The American Council on 

the Teaching of Foreign Languages emphasized the need for learners to consider target culture 

members’ perspectives as an outcome of their FL learning experience as evidenced in the 

addition of the Cultures Standards (2.1 and 2.2) to the National Standards for Foreign Language 

Learning (1999). In the European context, Byram (1997) also underscored the importance in FL 

education to move beyond an understanding of communication as an exchange of information 

but rather to “understand and relate to people from other countries” (p. 5). Researchers and 

educators in pursuit of best practices to promote cultural reflection in instructed FL learning 

often evaluate the effectiveness of pedagogical interventions by assessing the changes in 

learners’ intercultural competence (IC). Two theoretical approaches to assess learners’ IC 

development—Byram’s multimodal model of IC and Bennett’s Developmental Model of 

Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)—are widely cited across the literature in qualitative research. In 

this paper, I report the discrepancies between these two models that I found post-hoc of the 

data analysis of a larger study in which I investigated the changes in learners’ worldviews during 

online classroom discussions at the individual level with Byram’s framework and the group level 

with Bennett’s DMIS. By drawing attention to the discrepancies between these models—the 

instances where the same learners’ worldviews were interpreted to be at different levels of IC 

development according to the criteria defined in Byram and Bennett’s models—I reveal the 

subtle differences in what these expert IC theorists deem essential elements of learners’ IC. 

In this paper I first present several aspects of intercultural learning commonly investigated 

across the literature. Next, I provide an overview of many of the definitions for cross-cultural 

Copyright © 2012 11

Paula Garrett-Rucks Byram Versus Bennett 

understanding found in the literature that are similar to what I am describing as IC. I then focus 

on quantitative IC assessment tools followed by a review of comparative research that speaks 

to the merits of qualitative approaches over quantitative assessments alone to investigate the IC 

developmental process. After that, I review qualitative IC assessment methodologies and 

theories, emphasizing two of the most widely cited theoretical approaches—Byram’s multimodal 

model of IC and Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). This leads 

to the focus of the paper—the discrepancies I found when using both models to assess the 

same learners’ worldviews expressed over the course of a 16-week semester with both 

Bennett’s and Byram’s theoretical lenses. To do so, I briefly present the larger study conducted 

in which I analyzed the experiences of learners’ discussing cultural practices in a computermediated 

environment. Subsequently, I present the discrepancies I found post-hoc in my data 

analysis—the instances where the same learners’ worldviews were interpreted to be at different 

levels of IC development according to the criteria defined in Byram and Bennett’s models. I 

conclude the paper with an overview of the advantages and disadvantages I found when 

working with both models to investigate learners’ IC development. 

The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, I hope to empower readers with a stronger 

understanding of the research instruments and assessment tools used to measure IC 

development to critically evaluate the effectiveness of the pedagogical interventions investigated 

in the literature. Secondly, I hope to pique FL educators’ interest to create, implement and 

evaluate their own projects intended to foster learners’ IC and to promote cross-cultural 

understanding in the FL classroom. 

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 

Numerous studies have investigated aspects of intercultural learning such as 1) how students in 

intercultural communication with target language speakers exchange perspectives, opinions, 

and views (e.g., Belz, 2002; Belz & Müller-Hartmann, 2003; Furstenberg et al., 2001; Hanna & 

de Nooy, 2003; O’Dowd, 2003; Wade, 2005); 2) how native speakers (NS) and non-native 

speakers (NNS) co-create cultural impressions in discussions (Byram, 1997; Duffy & Mayes, 

2001; Johnson, 2008; Müller-Hartmann, 2000; McBride & Wildner-Bassett, 2008; Woodin, 

2001); or 3) how learners reflect on their own cultural beliefs in cross-cultural projects 

(Furstenberg et al., 2001, Müller-Hartmann, 2000; O’Dowd, 2003; Savignon & Rothmeier, 2004; 

Ware, 2005). Yet with no common yardstick used to measure learners’ development of 

intercultural understanding in these projects, it is difficult for educators to discern the potential 

value of replicating these projects in their own classrooms. A deeper understanding of both the 

definitions used to detect changes in learners’ cultural understanding and a familiarity with 

different types of IC assessment tools used across studies can help maximize educators’ 

interpretation of research findings to help determine the applicability of the pedagogical 

intervention investigated in their own unique learning situations. 

DEFINITIONS FOR LEARNERS’ CROSS-CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING 

The broad concept of intercultural competence has led to a range of definitions and models that 

have served as the basis for different approaches to its assessment. Fantini (2006) provided a 

comprehensive list of related terms used across the literature to describe intercultural 

competence including intercultural communicative competence (ICC), cross-cultural 

awareness, intercultural sensitivity, ethnorelativity, and global competencies which all 

essentially account for the ability to step beyond one’s own culture and function with individuals 

from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds. Torres and Rollock (2007) defined 

intercultural competence in cultural psychology as “proficiency regarding culturally relevant 

12 CERCLL ICC Proceedings


areas and group-specific skills that facilitate cultural interactions” (p. 11). Sercu (2005) defined 

intercultural communicative competence (ICC) in FL education as a learner’s ability to cope with 

intercultural experiences. She further described the intercultural competencies and 

characteristics as: 

the willingness to engage with foreign culture, self-awareness and the ability to 

look upon oneself from the outside, the ability to see the world through the 

others’ eyes, the ability to cope with uncertainty, the ability to act as a cultural 

mediator, the ability to evaluate others’ point of view, the ability to consciously 

use culture learning skills and to read the cultural context, and the understanding 

that individuals cannot be reduced to their collective identities. (p. 2) 

Byram (1997) underlined the importance in FL education to move beyond an understanding of 

communication as an exchange of information but rather to “understand and relate to people 

from other countries” (p. 5). He defined successful communication in FL learning as the ability 

of learners to “establish and maintain relationships” (p. 3). Byram (2000) described the 

attributes of a person with intercultural competence communicative competence as: 

…someone who is able to see relationships between different cultures—both 

internal and external to a society— and is able to mediate, that is interpret each 

in terms of the other, either for themselves or for other people. It is also someone 

who has a critical or analytical understanding of (parts of) their own and other 

cultures—someone who is conscious of their own perspective, of the way in 

which their thinking is culturally determined, rather than believing that their 

understanding and perspective is natural. (p. 9) 

Described by Hoyt (2012) as “a constellation of notions” (p. 94), Byram’s multimodal model 

contains prescriptive definitions and 28 performance assessment objectives centering on 

learners’ attitudes, knowledge, skills, and critical cultural awareness. Byram (2000) described 

successful intercultural learners as “conscious of their own perspective, of the way in which their 

thinking is culturally determined, rather than believing that their understanding and perspective 

is natural” (p. 10). 

Echoing Byram’s definition of a successful intercultural learning, Bennett underscores the 

importance of understanding and accepting diverse cultural perspectives in order for individuals 

to shift from ethnocentric to ethnorelative ways of responding to cultural differences in his 

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). Bennett (1993) defines intercultural 

sensitivity as individuals’ psychological ability to deal with cultural differences. Hammer and 

Bennett (2001) described learners with basic intercultural sensitivity as able to recognize and 

accept the complexity of cultural differences as “different constructions of reality” (p. 12). There 

currently exist a large number of practices that have been recommended and implemented for 

assessing intercultural competence depending on the particular definition or model of 

intercultural competence adopted. The following section presents a brief review of some of the 

most salient quantitative and qualitative practices I found to assess intercultural competence 

across the literature. 

EXAMPLES OF QUANTITATIVE IC ASSESSMENT TOOLS (BASIC, ICSI, CCAI, IDI, AND 

INCA) 

Many of the aforementioned studies in the review of the literature used surveys and 

questionnaires that were either designed by the researchers, or adapted from pre-existing IC 

assessment tools. Four salient types of assessment tools in the professional literature are for 

observers’ assessment of others (BASIC), self-reports (ICSI, CCAI and IDI), or a combination of 

CERCLL ICC Proceedings 13


self and other-reports (INCA) as described in detail below. 

The Behavioral Assessment Scale for Intercultural Competence (BASIC) was developed from 

behavioral approaches to ICC. The BASIC test originally used 4- and 5-point Likert scales for 

observers to assess individuals’ display of respect, interaction management, knowledge, 

empathy and tolerance for ambiguity. Ruben and Kealey (1979) adapted this scale to assess 

individuals and their spouses moving and living abroad for one year in both pre- and post- 

deployments (Ruben & Kealey, 1979). Koester and Olebe (1988) adopted and further 

developed the BASIC scales for university students living in dorms to evaluate their roommates 

instead of trained raters. Their study suggested that untrained individuals familiar with their 

peers’ behavior are capable of using the BASIC scale to provide a picture of their intercultural 

communicative effectiveness. 

Assessment tools used to self-report include the ICSI, CCAI and IDI. The Intercultural 

Sensitivity Inventory (ICSI) (Bhawuk & Brislin, 1992) was developed to measure an individual’s 

ability to adapt when living between an individualistic culture (United States) and a collectivistic 

culture (Japan). It was used on business graduate students living in international dormitories to 

self-report how they imagined living and working in the United States and Japan on the basis of 

what they believed to be socially acceptable as well as generic items on flexibility and openmindedness 

by responding to questions on a 7-point Likert scale. The Cross-Cultural 

Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) scales were also developed in the early 1990’s to provide 

information about an individual’s ability to adapt to different cultures based on four dimensions: 

(1) emotional resilience, (2) flexibility and openness, (3) perceptual acuity, and (4) personal 

autonomy (Kelley & Meyers, 1995). It is a self-report survey of 50-items using six-point Likert 

scale. It has been used to assess study abroad experiences (Williams, 2005; Zielinski, 2007) 

and sensitivity training for medical students (Majumdar, Keystone, & Cuttress; 2006). Davis and 

Finney (2006) have challenged this test stating that it is not statistically trustworthy. The 

Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) is a six-stage developmental model based on 

Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) and has been used to assess 

the changes in intercultural competence of high school students attending international schools 

(Straffon, 2003), university students who studied abroad (Engle & Engle, 2004; Jackson, 2010) 

and students exposed to intercultural training (Altshuler, Sussman, & Kachur, 2003). The IDI is 

a 50-item self-assessment with five-point Likert scales. Studies (Hammer et al., 2003; Paige et 

al., 2003) have provided support for the reliability and content/construct validity of this 

instrument by cross-referencing expert raters (Paige et al., 2003) and comparing the 

relationship between respondents’ scores on the IDI and their responses on two related scales, 

the Worldmindedness Scale and the Intercultural Anxiety scale (Hammer et al., 2003). 

Like Bennett, Byram’s model has served as the impetus for the creation of quantitative research 

instruments such as surveys and questionnaires. An example of a widely recognized combined 

IC assessment test came from the Intercultural Competence Assessment Project (INCA), 

greatly influenced by the work of Byram (1997). The INCA includes three assessment types 

that combine direct and indirect ways of measuring ICC: questionnaires, scenarios, and role 

plays. Although the INCA includes self- and other- reported components in its design, it is not 

uncommon for IC researchers to use mixed methodologies of self- and other reports in addition 

to quantitative and qualitative methodologies (e.g. Jackson, 2010). 

It is important to note that quantitative IC assessment studies have been scrutinized by several 

researchers who have expressed concerns about the research instruments designed to assess 

participants’ IC. For example, Arasaratnam and Doerfel (2005) questioned the ability of 

participants who have little experience in intercultural situations to self-report behavioral choices 



in hypothetical intercultural situations. Nonetheless, self-report surveys remain a widely 

practiced form of indirect assessment. Qualitative assessment designs are not as common as 

quantitative assessments of IC development, perhaps due to the time-consuming nature of 

collecting and analyzing direct data. However, studies comparing quantitative and qualitative 

assessment (Fantini, 2006; Straffon, 2003) suggest that qualitative approaches can provide 

more personalized, detailed accounts of the process of IC development that cannot be 

assessed by quantitative assessments alone. 

EXAMPLES OF QUALITATIVE IC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND THEORIES 

Researchers interested in qualitative approaches to IC assessment have argued that IC 

competence development may be represented best in direct assessment situations such as 

performance assessment (Byram, 1997), portfolio assessment (Byram, 1997, Jacobson et al., 

1999) or interviews (Fantini, 2006; Straffon, 2003). Performance assessment typically involves 

the elicitation of an individual’s ability to display IC in conversations with interlocutors. Portfolio 

assessment typically encourages students to reflect on their evolving intercultural competencies 

as represented in their work or personal documents. Interview assessment involves in-depth 

interviews in which researchers pose questions to elicit data on the nature and development of 

IC. 

One influential assessment of direct observation and research has been the Developmental 

Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) created by Bennett (1993) as a framework to explain 

the experience of people he observed in intercultural workshops, classes, exchanges, and 

graduate programs over the course of months and sometimes years. The DMIS provides an 

assessment structure for explaining how the person assessed sees, thinks about, and interprets 

cultural events happening around them and how an individual’s perspective of cultural patterns 

both guide and limit his or her experience of cultural differences. Bennett claimed that the 

learners he observed confronted cultural difference in some predictable ways as they acquired 

more intercultural sensitivity. Drawing concepts from cognitive psychology and constructivism, 

Bennett categorized the behavior he had observed into six stages of increasing sensitivity to 

cultural differences purporting that certain kinds of cognitive processing, attitudes, and 

behaviors would typically be associated with each phase. The six stages of DMIS represent a 

set of perspectives with successively greater ability to understand and have a more complete 

experience of cultural difference. The first three stages (Acceptance Stage, Adaptation Stage 

and Integration Stage) are considered ethnocentric or monocultural in that one’s own culture is 

seen as the only culture or the “better” culture. The second three DMIS stages are ethnorelative 

(Acceptance Stage, Adaptation Stage and Integration Stage) where the individual’s culture is 

one of many equally valid worldviews. Bennett suggested that the development of intercultural 

sensitivity evolves linearly as individuals gained increased awareness and acceptance of the 

constructs and experiences of cultural differences. Although the DMIS was created from direct 

observations in the qualitative tradition, it has been most commonly used as a source of 

inspiration for the formation of indirect assessment measures such as the aforementioned IDI in 

the quantitative tradition. 

More recently, researchers from the qualitative tradition often draw from Byram’s (1997) widely 

accepted framework for the assessment of the intercultural dimensions of attitude, knowledge, 

skills of interaction/discovery and relating/interpreting, and critical awareness in learners’ 

development of intercultural communicative competence. In Teaching and assessing 

intercultural communicative competence, Byram (1997) proposed this widely accepted fivefactor 

model of intercultural communicative competence that he designed to offer a general 

definition and description of IC applicable to multiple FL learning contexts. Byram has worked 



extensively with the Educational Council of Europe in the development of a portfolio assessment 

called “Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters” (Byram, 2008). Byram described the portfolio 

as, “focused entirely on helping learners to analyse encounters with otherness” (p. 222). 

However, to date there remains a lacuna of qualitative studies that provide empirical evidence of 

learners’ development within each of five dimensions in his model—attitudes, knowledge, skills 

of interaction/discovery, skills of relating/interpreting and critical awareness. 

THE IMPETUS OF THE STUDY: SITUATING THE ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER 

Having taught introductory French language instruction for over a decade, I am concerned with 

the lack of attention to fostering beginning language learners’ understanding of the target 

culture. Information from my informal discussions with Teaching Assistants and other 

introductory level FL instructors corroborates Philips (2011) survey results where many 

instructors reported difficulty fitting extended cultural work into the curriculum, particularly at 

beginning levels of instruction. Fox and Diaz-Greenburg (2006) found that many introductory FL 

instructors still focus primarily on the mechanics of language skills, believing that students' 

understanding of the target culture will occur in advanced courses or during study abroad. Yet, 

the majority of American students do not continue FL study beyond institutional requirements 

(MLA report). Consequently, few Americans are exposed to the kind of cultural instruction that 

fosters learners’ understanding of target-culture members’ perspectives toward their cultural 

practices and products. 

My personal interest in this study was to integrate cultural projects reported to be successful at 

intermediate and advanced levels of instruction into the beginning FL curriculum. The three 

salient features of successful culture learning projects in advanced FL instruction in the 

professional literature I encountered were 1) exposure to differing cultural practices, 2) exposure 

to diverse target culture members’ perspectives and 3) personalized discussions comparing 

different perspectives toward cultural practices that recognize learner agency (Furstenberg et 

al., 2001; Johnson, 2008; McBride & Wildner-Bassett, 2008). Due to learners’ limited linguistic 

mastery at beginning levels of instruction, I felt it was important to support the use of English 

during cultural discussions. However, I strongly believe in target-language use in communicative 

based classroom instruction in order to foster learners’ linguistic development. Furthermore, I 

knew that I could not disrupt the instruction of a beginning French course with the typical 

overextended curriculum. For these reasons, I situated supplemental cultural instruction and 

peer discussions in a computer-mediated environment. The purpose of this paper is not to 

analyze the effectiveness of the pedagogical interventions investigated (Garrett-Rucks, 2010), 

but rather to provide readers with examples of the types of discrepancies I encountered after 

analyzing the data to detect the emergence of learners’ IC at the individual level using Byram’s 

models in case study paradigms and Bennett’s theories to detect the collective shifts in the 

classroom discussions from ethnocentric to ethnorelative thinking. For this reason, I provide 

only a brief overview of the study and data analysis. 

THE STUDY: A BRIEF OVERVIEW 

In the fall of 2008, 13 students enrolled in a second-semester French course at a Midwestern 

technical college participated in weekly online classroom discussions on BlackBoard for course 

credit. The class was a communicative language course taught primarily in the target language. 

Outside of the classroom instruction, there were online classroom discussions in English, 

centering on French greetings, French education, and French family life over the course of a 16week 

semester. Each of the three discussions lasted five weeks and consisted of two phases. 

For Phase 1 of each discussion, participants were required to access two sources of cultural 



instruction; 1) specific online cultural instruction designed to explicitly teach Americans about 

French cultural practices and 2) selected authentic texts written by French native speakers for 

French native speakers about the cultural practices found on the Internet (Appendix A). 

Students were required to post their reactions to online cultural materials during Week 1 of the 

discussion and then to respond to two of their peers’ postings on the discussion board during 

Week 2. For Phase 2 of each discussion, participants were required to access pre-recorded 

interviews with four diverse French informants (Appendix B) and then to post their reactions to 

the interviews on the discussion board during Week 3 and to respond to two of their peers’ 

postings on the discussion board during Week 4. During Week 5 of each discussion, 

participants were instructed to reflect on all of the cultural materials and comments made on the 

discussion board and then to post their final impressions of the French cultural practices. 

For each of the three discussions, the discussion prompts instructed students how to make their 

weekly postings (where to find the cultural instruction, the posting word limit and the discussion 

questions) over the course of each five-week discussion. I developed the discussion prompt 

questions to promote students’ exploration of the relationships between the practices and 

products of French culture and the perspectives of the French people, in adherence to the goals 

of the National Standards for FL Learning (Standards 2.1, 2.2, and 4.2). 

Nine students, four females and five males, volunteered to be interviewed by the researcher at 

the close of each of the three discussions. Semi-structured interviews were intended to elicit 

learners’ impressions of French people and French culture and the influences on these 

impressions. Pre-and Post- semester questionnaires were also administered in an attempt to 

capture changes in learners’ thinking about cultural practices as well as changes in learners’ 

impressions of French people and French culture. 

The two research questions I investigated were: 

RQ (1): In what ways do changes in learners’ intercultural competence (IC) correspond with 

changes in their impressions of French people and French culture? 

RQ (2): What factors in the discussions (e.g. the online cultural instruction, the authentic 

texts, the French informants, peer interactions, the instructor, textbook, prior experiences 

with native speakers) appear to influence collective shifts between learners’ ethnocentric 

and ethnorelative perspectives? 

DATA ANALYSIS 

In order to respond to RQ1, I identified the changes in the four focus participants’ impressions of 

French people and French cultural practices in relationship to their developmental trajectory of 

IC over the semester by using a case study paradigm. I analyzed focus participants’ statements 

from their questionnaires, the transcripts of the online discussions and the transcripts of the 

post-discussion interviews using an open coding technique (Berg). Using line by line coding, I 

first coded all statements learners’ made about French people and French culture. After I 

identified changes in participants’ statements about French people and French culture on a 

week by week basis, I then attempted to find influences on these changes. I then identified 

changes in four focus participants’ developmental level of IC by coding the data for instances 

where I could detect evidence of the participants’ intercultural attitudes, knowledge and skills for 

each of the two phases in each discussion based on Byram’s (1997) definitions. Because 

learners were speaking in English in intracultural discussions with their peers rather than 

intercultural exchanges, I followed Byram’s objectives for intercultural competence, rather than 

intercultural communicative competence. Byram claims, “omitting reference to communication, I 



want to indicate the emphasis on skills, knowledge and attitudes other than those which are 

primarily linguistic” (p. 49). Byram defines: 

(1) Intercultural Attitudes: “Curiosity and openness, of readiness to suspend disbelief 

about other cultures and belief about one’s own” (p. 50). 

(2) Intercultural Knowledge: “Knowledge of social groups and their products and 

practices in one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s country, and of the general processes 

of societal and individual interactions” (p. 51). 

(3) Intercultural Skills: “Ability to interpret a document or event from another culture, to 

explain it and relate it to documents from one’s own” (p. 52). 

Byram provided 19 additional objectives (Appendix C) under each of these three broad 

definitions that he claims provide “a step towards describing teaching and assessment” (p. 50) 

of learners’ IC. These additional objectives guided my interpretation of the broader definitions in 

Byram’s multimodal model. I then reported changes in learners’ impressions of French people 

and French culture in relation to changes in their intercultural attitudes, knowledge and skills for 

each phase of each discussion. 

In order to respond to RQ2, the influences on the collective emergence of intercultural thinking 

for the class as a whole, I analyzed the transcripts of the discussions within a complex systems 

theoretical framework for the most salient cultural practice discussed. For example, in 

Discussion 1, French greetings, learners discussed shaking hands, smiling, la bise, and 

hugging. By using a line-by-line coding method (Charmaz, 2006), I identified smiling practices 

as the most salient cultural practice discussed. I then further analyzed all of the postings in the 

five week discussion that mentioned French or U.S. smiling practices to investigate shifts in 

learners’ worldviews toward differing smiling practices. I used the definitions provided within 

Bennett’s (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) to categorize 

participants’ IC developmental stages based on their statements about the cultural practice in 

question in each posting. Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity consists of 

six stages grouped into three Ethnocentric Stages (Denial Stage, Defense Stage, and 

Minimization Stage) where the individual’s culture is the central worldview. Each stage is 

defined as follows: 

Stage 1—Denial: The individual denies the difference or existence of other cultures by 

erecting psychological or physical barriers in the forms of isolation and 

separation from other cultures. 

Stage 2—Defense: The individual reacts against the threat of other cultures by 

denigrating the other cultures (negative stereotyping) and promoting the 

superiority of one’s own culture. *Reversal Phase—In some cases, the individual 

undergoes a reversal phase, during which the worldview shifts from one’s own 

culture to the other culture, and the own culture is subject to disparagement. 

Stage 3—Minimization: The individual acknowledges cultural differences on the surface 

but considers all cultures as fundamentally similar. 

Within the Ethnorelative Stages (Acceptance Stage, Adaptation Stage, and Integration Stage) 

where the individual has a more complex worldview in which cultures are understood relative to 

each other and actions are understood as culturally situated, Bennett further defined each stage 

as follows: 

Stage 4—Acceptance: The individual accepts and respects cultural differences with 

regard to behavior and values. 



Stage 5—Adaptation: The individual develops the ability to shift his frame of reference to 

other culturally diverse worldviews through empathy and pluralism. 

Stage 6—Integration: The individual expands and incorporates other worldviews into his 

own worldview. 

After assessing the participants’ developmental stage at the time of the each posting, I 

investigated collective shifts from learners’ ethnocentric thinking (stages 1-3) to enthorelative 

thinking (stages 4-6), or vice versa, for each week of the discussion. I also tracked changes in 

learners’ development between postings to further investigate peer influences on the shifts in 

worldviews in the discussions. In order to investigate the influence of the pedagogical 

interventions, I calculated the percentage of ethnocentric and ethnorelative postings for each 

phase of the discussion—OLI explicit cultural instruction and authentic texts for Phase 1 and 

French informant interviews for Phase 2—with attention to collective shifts between ethnocentric 

and ethnorelative thinking. I then situated the discussions within a complex systems theoretical 

framework in an attempt to identify the influences on collective shifts in learners’ thinking. 

After completing both analyses, I identified instances where learners who had attained threshold 

levels of IC within Byram’s model were considered to be using ethnocentric thinking by the 

definitions provided in Bennett’ DMIS. I report the types of discrepancies I found when 

assessing learners IC using these two different models in the next section. 

Discrepancy 1: Learners’ linear development of intercultural thinking 

Both Bennett and Byram’s theoretical frameworks speak to the occurrence of a shift in learners’ 

worldviews. Byram described a threshold level based on learners’ performance of the 

objectives for knowledge, attitudes and skills. Bennett claimed that a shift occurs from 

ethnocentric to ethnorelative thinking as individuals gain increased awareness and acceptance 

of the constructs and experiences of cultural differences in a linear development across the six 

stages. Findings from the data analysis of both research questions provided support for 

Byram’s threshold hypothesis, but contradictory evidence to the linear nature of IC development 

that Bennett claimed in his DMIS. Specifically, when investigating IC emergence at the group 

level, I detected inconsistent fluctuations between learners’ ethnocentric to ethnorelative 

thinking across each Phase of the three discussions. I also detected nonlinear IC development 

at the individual level in my analysis. Within the selection criteria I established to identify 

participants’ comments about a specific cultural practice, I detected several instances where 

individual learners shifted back and forth from ethnorelative to ethnocentric thinking on a weekly 

basis within the discussions, as explained in detail later within this section. Contrary to the 

fluctuations that occurred in learners’ IC assessment within Bennett’s DMIS, Byram’s threshold 

hypothesis held true for three of the four case studies I conducted as explained below. 

Evidence to support Byram’s threshold description 

When I situated the data collected for the four focus participants’ experiences within Byram’s 

multimodal model of IC, three of the focus participants (Brad, Jack and Lauren) appeared to 

have a moment of epiphany when they attained a threshold level of all three components 

(attitudes, knowledge and skills) within Byram’s model. Although developmental fluctuations 

initially occurred for individual components, these three learners consistently displayed signs of 

developed IC after the threshold attainment of all three components. This trend did not hold 

true for the fourth focus participant (James), who did not appear to attain a threshold level of 

attainment in all three of the areas of intercultural attitudes, knowledge and skills. Interestingly, 



James was also less consistent than the three other focus participants with his participation in 

the discussions as well as his attendance and general performance in the classroom. For these 

reasons, I am not including information about the fourth participant’s experiences in this brief 

overview of the three case studies. For the three focus participants who attained a threshold 

level in all three IC components during the semester, intercultural knowledge of cultural 

differences was important, but intercultural skills to relate to diverse French perspectives toward 

cultural practices seemed pivotal in developing strong intercultural attitudes. Brad, James and 

Lauren each entered the discussions with differing initial levels of intercultural attitudes, 

knowledge and skills and each participant attained the threshold level if IC development at 

differing moments across the semester—Brad in Discussion 1, James in Discussion 2 and 

Lauren in Discussion 3 as described in detail for each participant in turn below. 

Brad entered the discussions with developed intercultural knowledge and skills as evidenced by 

his interest in French history and politics and his ability to relate to differing French and 

American perspectives toward striking. However, he appeared to have weak intercultural 

attitudes as evidenced by his monolithic image of the French as being superior on his initial 

questionnaire and the first part of Discussion 1 where he stated, “I rather like that they [the 

French] have rules for multiple greetings. […] social interactions in this country need more 

rules.” Brad’s moment of change occurred after exposure to the French informants in the first 

discussion concerning their different perspectives toward greetings when he stated: 

Discussion 1, Phase 2: The thing that most struck me about what we watched was the 

variety of [French informant] responses. There are clearly wide personal variations 

within the "traditional" French greeting (Brad, Week 5). 

It appeared that exposure to diverse French perspectives toward greetings broke Brad’s 

monolithic image he previously held of the French. He continued to display evidence of strong 

intercultural knowledge, attitudes and skills for the remainder of the discussions. 

Jack entered the discussions with weak intercultural skills and attitudes, but evidence of strong 

intercultural knowledge, as evidenced on his initial questionnaire where he described his first 

images of the French to come to his mind as “the common stereotype assigned to the French by 

Americans, that is that they are snobby, rude and ‘elitist,’ if you will. Of course I know that these 

are unfair generalizations, but you asked what came to mind immediately.” In the first phase of 

Discussion 2, Jack responded to information about the French education system stating that it 

might, “cripple a student’s ability to explore all of their interests by making school too practical.” 

However, in Phase 2 of the discussion, he wrote: 

Discussion 2, Phase 2: Based on the positive responses of the French students in the 

YouTube videos, one might assume that the French may have found that little niche 

between too much choice and too little choice (Jack, Week 5). 

He continued to display evidence of strong intercultural knowledge, attitudes and skills for the 

remainder of the discussions. 

The third focus participant, Lauren, entered the discussion with poor intercultural attitudes, 

knowledge and skills expressing on her initial questionnaire that she imagined the French as 

“either being well groomed and dressed nicely or looking unpresentable and smelling like 

garbage.” She claimed that the “only negative image” to come to her mind was that the French 

“are snobby and rude.” There was continual evidence of Lauren’s increasing intercultural 

knowledge, but fluctuations in her developing attitudes and consistent displays of her poor skills 

relating to French perspectives until Discussion 3. Once Lauren reached a threshold level of IC 



skills in Discussion 3, on family structure, she explicitly wrote that her opinion of the French had 

changed on her final questionnaire as follows. 

The only negative image I have of French people is that they rarely smile. However, I 

don’t think of them as rude or strict people anymore. I realize that I grew up thinking 

smiling at a person was a polite thing to do. They just grew up thinking the opposite way 

(that it was overbearing or flirtatious) (Lauren, Final questionnaire). 

Each of these three participants’ had a shift in worldviews occur in the second phase of a 

discussion, after personally relating to a French informant’s perspective toward differing cultural 

practices. Further evidence existed in the data to suggest that these three learners continued to 

display evidence of IC after the threshold moment of displaying fully developed intercultural 

attitudes, knowledge and skills. On the contrary, there were continual fluctuation between 

ethnocentric and ethnorelative thinking found when situating the transcripts of the discussions 

within Bennett’s DMIS. 

Evidence to question the linear nature of development proposed in Bennett’s DMIS 

In an attempt to capture the influences of the pedagogical interventions—explicit cultural 

instruction and authentic texts during Phase 1 and French informant interviews during Phase 

2—I compared the percentage of postings where participants’ worldviews were evaluated at 

ethnocentric levels (Stages 1-3) to ethnorelative levels (Stages 4-6) for each phase of the 

discussion in. Based on this criteria, I detected shifts in learners’ ethnocentric to ethnorelative 

worldviews toward French smiling practices in Discussion 1 and French educational practices in 

Discussion 2 after exposure to the French informants’ perspectives in Phase 2 of these 

discussions. However, Discussion 3 was different. The information in Phase 1 of Discussion 3 

described the French PACs—a form of civil marriage originally intended to support homosexual 

unions—as an increasingly accepted cultural practice among heterosexual and homosexual 

partners. However, the four French informants expressed a personal preference for traditional 

marriages in their own lives, and inadvertently discredited the status of PACs stating things like, 

“the PACs is an arrangement for convenience, like for tax breaks, not love” (Florence). Many 

participants in the discussion appeared disappointed by the French informants’ apparent lack of 

acceptance of the PACS stating things like, “the abuse of the PACS reminds me of the abuse of 

the welfare system here” (participant, week 5). Consequently, there was a shift from 

ethnorelative to ethnocentric thinking in Discussion 3 in Phase 2 of the discussion (see Figure 

1). 



Figure 1. A comparison of the percentage of postings assessed in ethnocentric or ethnorelative 

stages in the DMIS for each phase of each discussion. 

In addition to these findings which suggest the nonlinear nature of intercultural sensitivity 

development at the group level, further analysis of the weekly changes in individual participants’ 

worldviews toward a specific cultural practice revealed the nonlinear nature of Bennett’s DMIS 

paradigm at the individual level as well. Individuals in this study often fluctuated inconsistently 

between ethnocentric and ethnorelative stages, particularly in peer response postings. For 

example, at the end of Discussion 1, I evaluated the following posting to be reflective of 

ethnorelative thinking. 

Discussion 1, Phase 2 … some of these practices (e.g. smiling) have so many different 

meanings and connotations by the manner, the way or in the environment in which they 

are done that it is difficult to make generalizations as Brad has indicated. (Tim, Week 5) 

I assessed Tim to be in the Adaptation Stage (Stage 5) of the DMIS due to his apparent ability 

to shift his frame of reference to other culturally diverse worldviews through empathy and 

pluralism, and categorized this posting as representative of ethnorelative thinking. However, in 

the next discussion, Tim’s response posting in the second week of Discussion 2 reflected 

ethnocentric thinking. 

Discussion 2, Phase 1: Forcing students to pick a career path while they are still 

teenagers is unjust and not psychologically sound. I wonder how often students change 

their career paths later in life? (Tim, Week 2) 

I evaluated Tim’s posting to be reflective of the Defense Stage of Bennett’s DMIS due to his 

strong negative description of French educational practices and his implication that U.S. 

educational practices are superior to French practices. 

The inconsistency between ethnorelative and ethnocentric worldviews was particularly prevalent 

in participants’ peer response postings (weeks two and four of discussions). Participants’ 

response posting often appeared to reflect the same type of thinking of the person to whom they 

were responding, particularly when either agreeing or disagreeing with a peer who was 

previously assessed at a lower developmental stage. For example, in Discussion 1, James 

initially appeared to relate to a French informant’s description of French smiling practices. 



Discussion 1, Phase 2: I liked how Thomas was hesitant to use la bise or smiling. He 

preferred to wait until he knew you better. That seems reasonable to me…. I didn't 

agree with her [Aunt Anne] calling our smile artificial, but I do agree with a less often 

smile being more meaningful and spontaneous (James, Week 3). 

I evaluated this posting to be reflective of ethnorelative thinking, and categorized James to be in 

the Acceptance Stage of the DMIS model due to his apparent respect for cultural differences. 

However, James’ Week 4 response posting reflected ethnocentric thinking in regard to 

behaviors and values. 

Discussion 1, Phase 2: I also think it was weird that they [the French informants] called 

our smile phony. Smiling makes its way into my day quite often (James, week 4). [my 

emphasis] 

James altered the developmental flow occurring in the dynamics of the discussion by digressing 

from an Acceptance Stage in Week 3 to a Defensive Stage in Week 4, contradicting what he 

had stated five days earlier where he had written that he agreed with the French perspective of 

smiling that smiling less often would make it more meaningful. By the use of the word also in 

James’ response posting, it becomes apparent that he had appropriated the opinions previously 

expressed by his peer. 

I must emphasize that I was only evaluating statements participants made pertaining to the 

most salient cultural practice addressed in the discussions. Furthermore, I did not include 

information from the questionnaires or post discussion interviews with participants. The case 

studies of four participants had a wider lens to evaluate the holistic experiences of the learners 

as well as a different assessment model based on the definitions created in Byram’s multimodal 

model of IC development. 

Discrepancy 2: The role of the evaluator’s subjectivity 

As expressed in the previous section, the assessment of the focus participants’ intercultural 

attitudes, knowledge and skills was straightforward when situating learners’ comments within 

Byram’s multimodal model. When I was uncertain about evaluating the learners’ comments 

based on the general definitions provided, I referred to the additional objectives Byram provided 

for each of the three factors—5 objectives for Attitudes, 11 objectives for knowledge, and 3 

objectives for skills—for further clarification (Appendix C). These additional detailed 

performance objectives Byram outlined for each of these categories seemed to provide a larger 

net to detect changes in learners’ worldviews within each of the categories. However, my 

application of Bennett’s DMIS proved to be problematic when assessing individual learners IC 

assessment based on their comments toward a unique cultural practice. Using the criteria 

provided by Bennett was particularly difficult when assessing learners’ postings in which they 

made conflicting statements. For example, in Phase 2 of Discussion 2, learners accessed the 

French informant interviews where all four of the informants essentially had positive comments 

to make about the French education system. 

I think it’s very different that the French require high school students to select a 

"specialized area of focus" before their junior and senior years of high school. I suppose 

on one hand, it can be effective because it gives high school students a set path of how 

to become successful in a field of their choice. On the other hand, I feel that it could in 

some ways cripple a student’s ability to explore all of their interests by making school too 

practical (Jack, Week 1). [my emphasis] 



This learner seemed to be expressing acceptance (Stage 4) of the U.S. and French cultural 

differences in education practices in his statement that it can be effective for French schools to 

provide students focus, yet then immediately after, he stated that the same practice could 

cripple students’ ability to explore their interests. I interpreted the strong use of the word 

“cripple” to indicate that this learner was in a Defense Stage (Stage 2), promoting the superiority 

of his own culture’s education practices. After great consideration, I assigned the learner a 

developmental stage between the two assessable stages, Minimization (Stage 3), with much 

reluctance. His thinking did not appear to fall within the definitions provided for this stage, but 

the model was not sufficiently descriptive to measure the learners’ development based solely on 

the content of their postings on the discussion board. Using the diverse objectives provided in 

Byram’s model, I assessed this learner to have signs of intercultural attitudes by questioning the 

values in his own cultural practice, a lack of focus in choosing a career path in U.S. high 

schools, and knowledge about the processes and institutions of socializations in one’s own and 

one’s interlocutor’s country as well as skills in interpreting and relating French and American 

cultural practices. 

Discrepancy 3: Assessing learners’ curiosity about other cultures 

Another component in Byram’s attitudes factor is the objective “interest in discovering other 

perspectives on interpretation of familiar and unfamiliar phenomena both in one’s own and in 

other cultures and cultural practices” (p. 92). Yet within Bennett’s DMIS, there is no 

consideration for learners’ curiosity toward other cultures. For example, after exposure to the 

French informant perspectives concerning education, one participant wrote 

Aunt Annie holds the French education as sacred but I don't know why…I did notice that 

Sophie said that she specialized in literature with an emphasis in math… Apparently 

they can do this. How often is it done? 

Another student also expressed curiosity about French education in Phase 2 of Discussion 2. 

I am also very interested in what the entire process of students choosing a major in high 

school is like. I assume that there is some sort or preliminary test to take to gain 

admission into certain majors or fields… 

Similarly, another student had questions about the French perspectives toward PACS: 

On a sort-of-related note, I wondered what the significance of PACS is in France. What 

kinds of rights or responsibilities does a PAC confer on a couple? If they are intended to 

be in all ways equivalent to marriage for a homosexual couples, why are increasing 

numbers of heterosexual couples embracing the idea as well? 

I evaluated each of these passages using the definitions provided within the intercultural 

attitudes component of Byram’s model, but there were no criteria established to assess these 

statements within Bennett’s DMIS. 

Discrepancy 4: Assessing learners’ attitudes toward their own culture 

Among the five objectives Byram described as modes of assessment for learners’ intercultural 

attitudes is the demonstration of learners’ “willingness to question the values and 

presuppositions in cultural practices and products in one’s own environment” (p. 92). Byram 

further stated that the learners’ willingness to question phenomena fundamental to their society 

might involve viewing these aspects from “the other’s interpretation and evaluations” (p. 92). On 

the contrary, within Bennett’s DMIS, a world view shift from one’s own culture to the other 

culture, particularly when one’s own culture is subject to criticism, would indicate that the learner 



was demonstrating ethnocentric thinking. In the Stage 2 of the DMIS, the Defense Stage, 

Byram describes a Reversal Phase learners may undergo during which the worldview shifts 

from one’s own culture to the other culture, and their own culture is subject to disparagement. 

There were instances in all three discussions in my study where learners would have been 

categorized as demonstrating developed intercultural attitudes by Byram’s definition, but were 

considered to be ethnocentric thinkers (Reversal Phase of Stage 2—Defense) within Bennett’s 

DMIS based on their comments. After exposure to the French informants’ descriptions of 

French and American smiling practices, one learner stated: 

I like and agree with Florence's description of the Colgate smile of Americans and that at 

times the smile or the way it is done can be aggressive and artificial as Annie describes 

rather than spontaneous and natural (Discussion 1, Phase 2). [my emphasis] 

The learner here appears to have appropriated the French informant Florence’s perspective 

toward American smiling practices as being at times aggressive and artificial and the French 

informant Aunt Anne’s perspective toward French smiling as more spontaneous and natural. By 

questioning common smiling practices in his own culture when viewing it from the eyes of a 

French informant, the learner is demonstrating developed intercultural attitudes within Byram’s 

criteria. On the contrary, I assessed this learner to be at Stage 2 within Bennett’s model, 

because it appears the learner’s own culture is the subject of disparagement in this paradigm, 

and that the learner is in the ethnocentric Reversal Phase. Similarly, in Discussion 2, 

concerning education, another learner shifted his worldviews to a French perspective. 

I do agree with them when they say the French system is more specialized and in 

depth. American secondary education is designed to be a superficial smorgasbord of 

classes with rarely any depth of study (Discussion 2, Phase 2). [my emphasis] 

This learner appropriated French informants’ worldviews toward their education system, and 

reflected back on his own U.S. education by comparison, noting the negative aspects of his own 

culture’s practices, disparaging the lack of depth of study in his own country. There were 

several other examples in the transcripts similar to these two examples. 

DISCUSSION OF EACH MODEL’S MERITS WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 

As Kauffmann, Martin, and Weaver (1992) noted, it is not surprising that different assessments 

of the same phenomena produce inconsistent results. However, as mentioned earlier, an 

understanding of the merits of the different assessments can empower researchers and 

educators to more accurately interpret results or to choose appropriate assessments for their 

own research. Both Bennett’s DMIS and Byram’s multimodal model have contributed 

enormously to the field of intercultural research in qualitative and quantitative research. For 

quantitative research, Bennett’s IDI remains one of the most commonly used research 

instruments to record changes in individuals’ worldviews. Likewise, Bennett’s INCA model has 

provided a tremendous influence for mixed method paradigms. But the focus of this study was 

an application of Bennett and Byram’s paradigms to qualitative research. 

In theory, Bennett’s DMIS provides a means to measure incremental IC development, providing 

insight into the different stages of learners’ development. Byram’s model does not. Byram 

refers to a threshold level of IC development. In three of the four case studies I conducted, 

students fluctuated between showing signs of development for each of the domains— 

intercultural attitudes, knowledge and skills—but once all three levels had been attained, the 

students consistently displayed signs of developed IC. On the contrary, when I used Bennett’s 

DMIS assessment model to identify incremental changes in stages of learners’ IC development, 

particularly shifts between ethnocentric and ethnorelative perspectives, I noticed nonlinear 



developmental inconsistencies. There are factors within this study that may have contributed to 

these inconsistencies. Firstly, I only analyzed learners’ isolated statements made about a 

specific cultural topic. An analysis of learners’ postings in their entirety could have resulted in a 

different assessment of their developmental stages. It must also be noted that the subjective 

nature of the interpretation of the definitions provided by Bennett could have also influenced the 

developmental inconsistencies. It is possible that Bennett would have classified students’ 

statements differently than I had due to his greater understanding of the definitions in his theory. 

As I mentioned in Discrepancy 2, I often found it difficult to assess learners’ conflicting 

statements pertaining to just one cultural topic using the criteria provided by Bennett. I believe it 

would be increasingly difficult to assess learners’ worldviews toward multiple cultural practices 

within the criteria defined in Bennett’s DMIS. Contrarily, Byram’s model limits subjective 

misinterpretation. Under each of Byram’s broad definitions for intercultural attitudes, knowledge 

and skills, he provided numerous objectives. As noted earlier under discrepancy four, these 

objectives provided further clarification, and as such reduced the subjectivity of interpretation of 

his broader objectives. 

Yet beyond the subjective limitations of my assessments, there were further limitations to the 

Bennett model. Bennett provides no recognition of individuals’ curiosity about other cultures 

and Bennett’s Reversal Phase in the Defense stage seemed to discredit learners’ ability to 

decentre themselves from their belief that their cultural practice is the correct way to behave. 

As FL educators, this ability to decentre is critical to instructed FL learning. Perhaps Bennett’s 

model is more suitable for an immersion context, or to measure long-term changes in an 

immersion environment. Bennett proposes that it takes at least 2 years of cross-cultural 

immersion for an individual to advance into the Integration Stage, the most advanced stage of 

his DMIS. Yet in the instructed FL learning environment, educators are limited to the time 

constraints determined by the academic calendar. Future research comparing learners’ 

developmental assessment within both Bennett and Byram’s theoretical frameworks, particularly 

in target-culture immersion environments, would help elucidate the discrepancies and nuances 

found in the present study. 

Despite the inclusion of the Cultures Standards into the ACTFL National Standards for Foreign 

Language Learning, this study provides insight into the need for U.S. educators to develop a 

model to assess learners’ intercultural competence in the FL curriculum, similar to the way in 

which Byram has integrated his multimodal model into the European Framework. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR 

Paula Garrett-Rucks (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin) is Assistant Professor of Second 

Language Acquisition (SLA) and Foreign Language (FL) Education at Georgia State University. 

She teaches courses in French, SLA and FL Education. Her research is focused on fostering 

intercultural competence in instructed FL learning. 

REFERENCES 

Altshuler, L., Sussman, N. M., & Kachur, E. (2003). Assessing changes in intercultural 

sensitivity among physican trainees using the intercultural development inventory. 

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 387-401. 



American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (1999). Revised Standards 

for foreign language learning. Yonkers, New York: ACTFL. 

Arasaratnam, L. A., & Doerfel, M. L. (2005). Intercultural communication competence: 

Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of 

Intercultural Relations, 29, 137-163. 

Belz, J. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language 

Learning and Technology, 6(1), 60-81. 

Belz, J. (2005). Intercultural Questioning, Discovery and Tension in Internet-mediated Language 

Learning Partnerships. Language and Intercultural Communication 5, 3-37. 

Belz, J. & Müller–Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German– 

American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. Modern Language Journal, 

87(1), 71-89. 

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

sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21-71). 

Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural. 

Bennett, M. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), 

Basic concepts of intercultural communication (pp. 1–34). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural 

Press. 

Bennett, J.M., & Bennett, M. J. (2004) Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative 

approach to global and domestic diversity. In D. Landis, J. Bennett & M. Bennett (Eds.), 

Handbook of intercultural training, 3rd Edition ( pp. 147–165). Thousand Oaks: Sage. 

Berg, B. (1998) Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, 

Mass. 

Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Brislin, R. (1992). The measurement of intercultural sensitivity using the 

concepts of individualism and collectivism. International Journal of Intercultural 

Relations, 16, 413-436. 

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Bristol, 

PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 

Byram (2000). Assessing Intercultural Competence in Language Teaching. SPROGFORUM, 

18(6), 8-13 http://inet.dpb.dpu.dk/infodok/sprogforum/Espr18/byram.html [retrieved, 

June, 2009]. 

Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: 

Essays and reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative 

analysis. London & Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Davis, S. L., & Finney, S. J. (2006). A factor analytic study of the cross-cultural adaptability 

inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 318 - 330. 



Duffy, S., & Mayes, J. (2001). "Family life" and "regional identity" -- Comparative studies while 

learning French. In M. Byram, A. Nichols, & D. Stevens (Eds.), Developing intercultural 

competence in practice (pp. 93-111). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. 

Engle, L., & Engle, J. (2004). Assessing language acquisition and intercultural sensitivity 

development in relation to study abroad program design. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary 

Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 253–276. 

Fantini, A. E. (2006). Exploring and assessing intercultural competence. Retrieved June 8, 

2008, from http://www.sit.edu/publications/docs/feil_research_report.pdf 

Fox, R & Diaz-Greenberg, R. (2006). Culture, multiculturalism, and foreign/ world language 

standards in U.S. teacher preparation programs: toward a discourse of dissonance. 

European Journal of Teacher Education, 29 (3), 401-422. 

Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent 

language of culture: The CULTURA Project. Language Learning and Technology, 5(1), 

55-102. 

Garrett-Rucks, P. (2010). The emergence of U.S. French language learners’ intercultural 

competence in online discussions. Doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin, 

Madison. 

Hammer, M. R., & Bennett, M. J. (2001). The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) Manual. 

Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication Institute. 

Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The 

intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 

421–443. 

Hanna, B., & de Nooy, J. (2003). A funny thing happened on the way to the forum: Electronic 

discussion and foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1), 71- 

85. 

Hoyt, K. (2012 ). Developing intercultural competence via semi-directed cross-cultural 

interviews. NECTFL Review, 69(1), 94-117. 

Jackson, J. (2010). Intercultural Journeys: From Study to Residence Abroad, Basingstoke: 

Palgrave MacMillan. 

Jacobson, W., Schleicher, D., & Maureen, B. (1999). Portfolio assessment of intercultural 

competence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(3), 467-492. 

Johnson, N. (2008). Postcards from the (Turbulent) Edge (of Chaos): Complexity theory and 

Computer Mediated Communication. In S. Sieloff Magnan (Ed.), Mediating Discourse 

Online (pp. 73-92). Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Co. 

Kauffmann, N. L., Martin, J. N., & Weaver, H. D. (1992). Students abroad: Strangers at home. 

Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. 



Koester, J., & Olebe, M. (1988). The behavioral assessment scale for intercultural 

communication effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 12, 233- 

246. 

Majumdar, B., Keystone, J. S., & Cuttress, L. A. (1999). Cultural sensitivity training among 

foreign medical students. Medical Education, 33, 177-184. 

McBride, K. & Wildner-Basset, M. (2008). Interpersonal and intercultural understanding in a 

blended second culture classroom. In S. Sieloff Magnan (Ed.), Mediating Discourse 

Online (pp. 93-124). Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Co. 

Müller-Hartmann, A. (2000). The role of tasks in promoting intercultural learning in electronic 

learning networks. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (2), 129-147. 

National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. Standards for Foreign Language 

Learning in the 21st Century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press, 1999, 2006. 

O'Dowd, R. (2003). Understanding the 'other side': Intercultural learning a Spanish-English email 

exchange. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 118-144. 

Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, Y. A., & DeJaeghere, J. (2003). Assessing 

intercultural sensitivity: An empirical analysis of the Intercultural Development Inventory. 

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 467–486. 

Phillips, June. “The Impact of the National Standards on Language Education & National 

Initiatives.” North East Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Baltimore 

Marriot Waterfront Hotel, 3 April 2011. 

Ruben, B. D., & Kealey, D. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communication competency and 

the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 

3, 15-48. 

Savignon S. & Rothmeier, W. (2004). Computer-mediated communication strategies. Calico 

Journal, 21 (2), 265-290. 

Sercu, L. (2005) Foreign Language Teachers and Intercultural Competence: An 

International Investigation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 

Straffon, D. A. (2003). Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of high school students attending 

an international school. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 487–501. 

Torres, L., & Rollock, D. (2007). Acculturation and depression among Hispanics: The 

moderating effect of intercultural competence. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority 

Psychology, 13, 10–17. 

Wade, E. (2005). Enhancing German language learners’ intercultural communicative 

competence through the on-line exchange project ICE. Doctoral dissertation. University 

of California, Santa Barbara. 

Ware, P. (2005). 'Missed' communication in online communication: Tensions in a German- 

American telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 9(2), 64-89. 



Williams, T. R. (2005). Exploring the impact of study abroad on students’ intercultural 

communication skills: Adaptability and sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International 

Education, 9(4), 356-371. 

Woodin, J. (2001). Tandem Learning as an intercultural activity. In M. Byram, A. Nichols, & D. 

Stevens (Eds.), Developing intercultural competence in practice (pp. 189-202). 

Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. 

Zielinksi, B. A. Z. (2007). Study abroad length of program influence on cross-cultural 

adaptability. Unpublished master’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University, Blacksburg, VA. 



APPENDIX A 

Authentic texts 

Discussion Description and URL Source 

Discussion 

1 

1. Smiles 

Diverse French perspectives toward 

smiling in France. 

*http://www.museedusourire.com/ 

2. la bise Diverse French perspectives toward 

a type of kissing while greeting in 

France. 

*http://fr.answers.yahoo.com/ 

Discussion 

2 

Secondary 

Education 

Discussion 

3 

Family 

Different educational paths French 

students can take after middle 

school. 

http://www.education.gouv.fr/ 

Information concerning birthrates, 

life expectancy, marriage and the 

PACS. 

http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/ 

Taken from an online museum 

which researches and 

publishes studies on smiling in 

France. 

Taken from a French Yahoo 

discussion forum. 

Francophone participants 

discuss whether or not they 

like la bise. 

Taken from the French Ministry 

of National Education website. 

Taken from March 28, 2008 

from Nouvel Observateur 

newspaper 



APPENDIX B 

French informant information 

Informant Gender/ Region in France Familiarity with life in the United 

Age 

States 

Thomas M/ 20 Grenoble Arrived in the United States 2 days 

prior to the interview for a year-long 

Sophie F/ 25 Mostly the south of 

France, 2 years in 

Tahiti (her Dad was 

in the French navy) 

university exchange program. 

Starting her second year of a French 

literature Master’s program in the 

United States. 

Florence F/31 Orleans Starting her 6 th year in the United 

States in a French literature Ph.D. 

program. She has been married to an 

American for 5 years. 

Aunt Anne F/ 60 Bordeaux She has never visited the United 

States. Her niece married an 

American and has been in the United 

States for 7 years. 



APPENDIX C 

Byram’s objectives (as cited in Hoyt, 2012, pp. 104-105) 

I. Attitudes (savoir-être): curiosity & openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about 

other cultures and belief about one’s own. 

Objectives: 

a. willingness to seek out or take up opportunities to engage with otherness in a relationship of equality, 

distinct from seeking out the exotic or to profit from others. 

b. interest in discovering other perspectives on interpretation of familiar and unfamiliar phenomena both in 

one’s own and in other cultures and cultural practices. 

c. willingness to question the values and presuppositions in cultural practices and products in one’s own 

environment. 

d. readiness to experience the different stages of adaptation to and interaction with another culture during 

a period of residence. 

e. Readiness to engage with the conventions and rites of verbal and non-verbal communication and 

interaction. 

II. Knowledge (savoirs): of social groups and their products and practices in one’s own 

and in one’s interlocutor’s country, and of the general processes of societal and 

individual interaction. 

Objectives (knowledge of/about): 

a. historical and contemporary relationships between one’s own and one’s interlocutor’s countries. 

b. the means of achieving contact with interlocutors from another country (at a distance or in proximity), of 

travel to and from, and the institutions which facilitate contact or help resolve problems. 

c. the types of cause and process of misunderstanding between interlocutors of different cultural origins. 

d. the national memory of one’s own country and how its events are related to and seen from the 

perspective of other countries. 

e. the national memory of one’s interlocutor’s country and the perspective on them from one’s own 

country. 

f. the national definitions of geographical space in one’s own country, and how these are perceived from 

the perspective of other countries. 

g. the national definitions of geographical space in one’s interlocutor’s country and the perspective on 

them from one’s own. 

h. the processes and institutions of socialisation in one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s country. 

i. social distinctions and their principal markers, in one’s own country and one’s interlocutor’s. 

j. institutions, and perceptions of them, which impinge on daily life within one’s own and in one’s 

interlocutor’s country and which conduct and influence relationships between them. 

k. the process of social interaction in one’s interlocutor’s country. 

III. Skills of interpreting and relating (savoir comprendre): ability to interpret a 

document or event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to documents or 

events from one’s own. 

Objectives (ability to): 

a. identify ethnocentric perspectives in a document or event and explain their origins. 

b. identify areas of misunderstanding and dysfunction in an interaction and explain them in terms of each 

of the cultural systems present. 

c. mediate between conflicting interpretations of phenomena.

BYRAM VERSUS BENNETT: DISCREPANCIES IN THE ... - CERCLL

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?