Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contents
I. Introduction
I. Introduction
With a dream to become an expert in teacher education, I started my PhD study in the US
where I had never been before. It did not take long to realize that living and studying in a
different culture would not be easy, rather challenging. In front of a lot of cultural differences, I
started asking “who am I?” In the process of thinking and reasoning to discover answers, I could
learn and realize that ‘culture’ is a strong part of people’s lives. Therefore, it was so natural for
me to become interested in Korean teachers’ cultural awareness and sensitivity and consider
teachers who works with multicultural students seem to be important to me, because I strongly
believe that teachers should contribute to democratizing education by being advocates for poor
students to take back their right to access to the quality public education.
competence (IC) and intercultural communicative competence (ICC) by producing this work.
Through investigating various IC/ICC models both historically and by discipline, I could make
an interesting study from varying perspectives. In addition, this background knowledge about
NK and SK, as well as the research I have done is essential to understanding how the proposed
study will add to the small, yet growing, body of research literature emanating from Korea and
The world’s regions and countries have close ties with one another in most areas of
human activity such as politics, economics, society, culture, and education (Baylis et al., 2017;
Beck, 2018; Knight, 2015; Pieterse, 2015; Popkewitz et al., 2009; Satyanath, 2006; Suarez-
4
Orozco et al., 2004). The form of interconnections among nations and people is commonly
indicated by using the term globalization. The increasing interaction of people through the
internet, the media, and international travel brought about cultural globalization. Cultural
globalization refers to how “contacts between people and their cultures—their ideas, their values,
their way of life—have been growing and deepening in unprecedented ways” (UN Report, 1999,
p. 33). Due to the transmission of various cultures, multicultural society became one of the
different speakers use them in different ways and contexts. Hence, I will approach my topic by
first examining two areas: the concepts of ‘multicultural’ and ‘intercultural’ in the context of the
studying of other societal phenomena. Then, the reasons why we need to focus on intercultural
there are several cultural, ethnic, and religious groups living alongside one another based on the
principle of cultural relativism (Portera, 2011). Barrett (2013) explains well in his book
preserve and protect cultural differences. There are varying interpretations of terminology. For
example, Kymlicka (2010) points out that it fails to value all cultures equally and ignores the
discrimination and economic disadvantages which the minorities commonly experience. When it
comes to structural multiculturalism, it actively tackles the political, economic, and social
prejudices and inequalities that are confronted by minority groups, as well as allows culturally
5
minority people to adhere to their own cultural practices. However, people do not necessarily
about how to implement successful multiculturalism in a society. Parekh (2006) argued that
multiculturalism was about relationships between different cultural communities. Through “open
and equal dialogue” (Parekh, 2006, p. 13), and “a shared commitment to dialogue in both the
political and non-political areas of like as the unifying focus and principle of society” (p. 15),
accelerating change within Europe. According to Barret (2013), the term interculturalism
dialogue’ which is placed in the center of the ideology of interculturalism (Barrett, 2013). Barret
mentions that “intercultural dialogue itself may be defined as the open and respectful exchange
of views between individuals and groups that have different cultural affiliations, on the basis of
equality” (p. 15). Through intercultural dialogue, individuals exchange ideas and cultural norms
mutually, so that they are able to build deep relationships with one another. Barrett argued that in
ability to adapt one’s behavior to new cultural contexts, and linguistic, sociolinguistic and
South Korea is rapidly becoming a multicultural society. Since the mid-1990s, in line
with its economic growth, South Korea has been undergoing a change in its social situation.
6
Increasing the number of foreign migrant workers and international marriage are transforming
South Korea into a more diverse and multicultural society. According to the press release of the
Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs and National Statistical Office, the
total number of foreign residents living in Korea on November 1, 2015 was 1.71 million which is
3.4% of the total population. This is a 300% increase compared to 2006, and it is continuing to
accelerate. After 2020, the population of multicultural families is expected to reach 5% of the
In addition, due to the continuous inflow of North Korean (NK) refugees, the cultural
diversity of residents in South Korea is been promoted further. Viewed from outside Kore, it
may seem that the society is monocultural, however, in actuality the divide between North and
South Korea have resulted in a strong divide. It is because since the day when the Korean war
Armistice Agreement was signed, South and North Korea have been maintaining different
political stances and the political events destroyed the cultural and linguistic homogeneity of
people. The sharp difference in political philosophy has divided the Korean peninsula into two
parts along the 38th parallel so that North and South Korea have been in a prolonged conflict,
ceasing political, economic and cultural interchanges for over 67 years. As a result, the two
nations have formed dissimilar values and attitudes of life—the elements of little ‘c’ culture and
have not experienced mutual exchanges until now. Among younger generations, the cultural gap
is significant.
In the past, owing to the scarcity of food and harsh living conditions in NK, the number
of North Koreans living in SK had steadily increased. On the other hand, in the future, we expect
that the increasing mutual exchange between South and North Korea in all areas will make SK a
more culturally diverse country. After the historic inter-Korean summit followed by “talks of the
7
century” between the American president and the North Korean leader, South and North Koreans
became full of hope for ending the 1950-53 Korean War and bring permanent peace to the
between the both sides’ leaders seems to be accelerating the realization of that national hope.
The ethnic and cultural diversity toward a multicultural society have led to changes in
the education/learner population. The increase in the number of multicultural families has begun
to challenge the traditional education system in Korea. Due to the ‘Us vs. Them’ paradigm that
underlies Koreans’ mindset, often culturally and linguistically diverse students are not well
result of a survey in which 190 immigrants participated, asking them to identify a place where
racial discrimination mainly took place, education facilities such as schools were ranked as the
top (Gyeonggi-do Foreigner Human Rights Supports Center, 2016). Therefore, the social
addressed.
To understand NKR students’ traits, it seems to be necessary for us to see their various
backgrounds first. For their parents, it was by no means easy to defect from their own country. It
takes quite a long time to arrive in South Korea; the process of defections takes from six months
to eight years (Korea Hana Foundation, 2014). That is, a number of refugees had their children in
third countries: China, Russia, and other North East or South East Asian countries. According to
the report of the Chungnam Association for Research on Unification Education (2015), out of the
8
NK refugees who arrived in South Korea by December 2015, the number of young people who
were aged 6 – 20 years accounted for 16 % of the total. Until the early 2000s, most of the NK
young refugees were born and raised in North Korea. However, after the mid-2000s, the number
of northern refugee students from the third countries increased. South Korea’s Ministry of
Unification announced that the number of third-country-born NKR students in 2003 was 36.2%
of the total, but as of the end of 2016, it outnumbered young NKR, accounting for 52.3%.
Considering the diverse backgrounds NKR students have, the South Korean government should
prepare education stakeholders to create welcoming classroom environments for the new settlers
As of 2015, the figure of third-country-born northern refugee students is more than half
of all NKR students. Although many private and non-profit organizations and the Korean
government have supported refugee youths to help them adapt to new school environments,
many NK teenagers still struggle with culturally unfamiliar circumstances. Korean government
has been hiring NK adult refugees who used to be teachers in North Korea as educational
supporters to deal with the culture shock that NK young students might experience in the South.
mentoring, and developing and running cultural experience programs. As a result, the school
dropout rates have gradually decreased by about 80 percent since 2008, from 10.8% in 2008 to
2.2% in 2015. However, it is still at an alarming level, because it is more than 5 times higher
than the average for SK students who have an average dropout rate of less than 0.4%.
There are a variety of reasons why NK students have difficulty in adjusting to school life,
but, according to the report conducted by Korea Hana Foundation in 2014, the main reason for
9
dropping out is the challenges related to differences of language, lifestyle, and academic
background. The result of the survey that the Korea Hana foundation performed for 744 NKR
students shows that as the most difficult problems with school life, 48.0% of students responded,
‘following curriculum,’ 17.6% ‘adapting cultures and language,’ 9.7% ‘making friends,’ and
1.4% ‘developing good relations with teachers’ (Korea Hana Foundation, 2014). Kim (2010)
regarded NK young refugees’ low self-confidence and cultural stress as crucial factors which
influenced negatively their adjustment to the new educational environments. In particular, unlike
NK adult refugees, youths tended to think that they were forced to defect from their countries by
their parents. Leaving their country was not a matter that most NK teenagers chose by
themselves, so the willingness to adapt to an unfamiliar environment and the attempts to learn
new culture are inevitably low. In such a situation, the disconnection in language and cultural
norms between SK and NK students were primary obstacles to forming a natural friendship in
schools. In addition, the different curriculum and learning content, and the competitive learning
atmosphere of South Korea made their school life more challenging (Chungnam Association for
For NKR students, the subjects such as Korean and mathematics that are taught in South
Korean schools are gradually being adapted because they had learned them in the North.
However, most of NKR students regard English as the most difficult one to learn among regular
subjects (Shin et al., 2012). Recently, there has been an increase in the number of students who
have studied English in North Korea. Yet, they had not felt the need for English much there, they
are less willing to learn English after coming to the South. According to the research of 2011
10
National Elementary, Middle, and High School English Achievement, a great part of NK learners
Through conducting and analyzing in-depth interviews, Kwon (2017) was able to
summarize the common factors that made NKR students feel difficulties in learning English. He
was able to find three major themes out of the factors: personal, institutional, and socio-cultural
factors. First, NKR students presented their personal reason, a lack of basic knowledge of
English that caused by ‘educational gap.’ Second, between NK and SK, noticeable differences of
educational environments are challenging for NKR students to overcome. Lastly, educational
contents are not effectively delivered to NKR students due to difficulties in communications that
In the Kwon’s (2017) research, NKR students commonly mentioned that ‘learning gap’
was an important reason of their underachievement in English. In the case of students who came
into the South without staying in a third county, they had never learned English before in the
North. Even if they took English classes, the number of lessons was very limited. According to
Cho and her colleague (2013), in North Korea, students had been taught English once a week for
an hour since 2008, but most of NKR students said that learning English at public education
institutions was not experienced until the first year of junior high school. Moreover, the NK
adolescent who spent several years in third countries might suffer from learning shortage in a
severe way. While staying in those countries, their status was as illegal aliens, and they often had
to endure physical and psychological suffering. Under these hardships, NK adolescent students
11
were easily excluded and marginalized from any types of educational opportunities including
South Korea had a negative impact on their English education. Particularly, given that the
SK, low socio-economic status of NKR students’ parent(s) can be interpreted as one of key
factor of their underachievement in English learning. According to Cho, the last personal factor
was the limited accessibility to quality and reliable information with regard to English education.
Among NKR students who born and raised in third countries, it is easily observed that they do
not have Korean language ability in their repertoire. This has resulted in NK students’
educational purposes, in SK students learn the language under the aim of the national curriculum,
“Students will develop their ability to communicate in English to expand their intellectual
capacity and knowledge and to raise ability to cope with the changes in the times as the future
leaders (Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology, 2011).” The language use ability,
there is a unified goal that is embedded over the educational curriculum; learning the Juche idea
(North Korea’s political ideology), the policy of the party, the revolutionary tradition, and
communist education contents is given priority (Park et al., 2001; Jung, 2010). Due to the
rigorous and rigid ideological education, the learning motivation of NK students might not be
12
same as the one of learners who are in SK. Moreover, through the narratives from interviews
with NKR students and NKR teachers (Kwon, 2017), we are able to understand that NK teachers
stick to traditional teaching methodologies which are known to be less efficient. They emphasize
rote memorization without scaffolding and encouraging students to collaborate with one another.
The concept of ‘communicative competence’ is not revealed in the English education curriculum
(Lee et al., 2006). Owing to the old-fashioned way of teaching and learning, it is not very
surprising that students are likely to lose their interest in learning English. The existing gap
between North and South Koreas’ English education curriculums would be causative of NKR
students’ frustration in English classrooms. Lastly, in the NK English text books, the negative
connotations associated with cultures and societies of English-speaking countries make students
institutions, NKR students tend to have anti-American sentiment. In addition, it was revealed that
the contents of classes were in general not conveyed successfully because they said they could
not understand the language used in classrooms. This lack of language comprehension ability
become a stumbling block to learning another language, English. Also, NKR students were
In North Korea, it was hard for teachers to force us to study English, but in South Korea it was so
good at first that teachers did not compel us to do homework and they treated us kindly and gently.
Over time, I learned how important English is here. And then, I had to make preparation for paper-
based exams where there are a lot of things that I couldn’t understand (From the interview in
Gwon, 2017).
While in North Korea, they had difficulties in a standardized education style and teachers’
oppressive attitude, the fact that they were far behind the SK students in English (Gwon, 2017)
13
and the mainstream English curriculum for NKR students was not tailored enough to reflect their
Owing partly to the influx of the NK refugees, the transformation of SK society to a more
multicultural society than ever before experienced. Multiculturalism makes people rethink the
importance of teachers’ roles in society. For students from multicultural and multilingual
backgrounds, the school should be able to provide safe environments for new challenges and
Especially, teachers’ intercultural competence (IC) is called for more than before. Teachers who
have positive beliefs regarding diversity are able to impart their IC to their students who bring
3.2.1. English language (EL) teachers’ IC for NKR students’ academic success
and other scholarly research to date, our understanding about SK teachers’ difficulties as they
work with NK refugee youths remains incomplete; in a search for the cultural gap between SK
teachers and NK students, I used search terms such as ‘NK refugee students AND English
language education AND English language teachers AND cultural challenges AND cultural
differences’ but, little to no research was found. I could find only 11 studies (3 governmental and
8 private) concerning factors that affect NKR students’ academic underachievement in English
and 4 studies with regard to the actual condition of teaching and learning of multicultural
students. In the studies, researchers were not adequately addressing the unique situations that
NKR students were in. Moreover, I could not find any research with regard to intercultural
competence or cultural sensitivity of SK EL teachers who are working with NK refugee youth.
14
‘good/effective’ EL teachers in their instruction for NK students. Given the huge gap of
I argue that the current lack of research concerning SK EL teachers’ perceptions and
practices on IC prevent us from fully understanding the key issues at the core of teachers’
coming from Korea on this topic, I would like to do my research by exploring Korean English
teachers’ IC. The following research questions capture the nature of this research, which (at this
4. Research Question
1) How do Korean English teachers perceive the concept and functions of culture in the
increasing multicultural and intercultural society of Korea today?
i) How do they understand the nature of culture such as mobility, hybridity, and
negotiability?
ii) How do they understand cultural labeling and discrimination?
[Probe for participants’ understanding of cultural hegemony]
2) How do Korean English teachers perceive and practice IC in working with NKR
students?
i) How do they define IC?
[Probe for participants’ understanding of IC ]
ii) How do they address to cultural differences?
[Probe for participants’ inquiry]
iii) How do they deal with cultural conflict situations in classes?
[Probe for participants’ framing]
iv) How do they perceive the power imbalance between communicators?
[Probe for participants’ positioning]
15
interconnectedness among people are increasing. The accelerated interrelationship among people
from diverse cultures drive us to feel the necessity and urgency of IC/ICC because IC/ICC plays
a crucial role in effective and appropriate communication (Huang, Rayner, & Zhuang, 2003).
Although there are no naysayers on the importance of IC/ICC, owing to its dynamic and
multifaceted nature, IC was treated lightly by researchers (Aikman, 2012; Holliday, 2010). The
definition, dimensions, and assessment of IC/ICC have been arguable and disputable. Therefore,
knowledge in the first half of this literature review. In the second half, the relatively new
5. Traditional approach to IC
5.3. Culture
Across many disciplines, scholars have studied the subject of culture over a long period
of time. Due to the complex and often ambiguous nature of culture, as well as its many
connotations across disciplines, there are many different meanings and definitions attached to the
term: there were over 150 definitions of culture identified in the 1950s (Kroeber & Kluckhohn,
1952). According to Brody (2003), there are hundreds of definitions of culture at the beginning
16
of the 20 century. The reason why culture has been regarded so importantly in the history of
human beings is that it is impossible to understand human society without understanding culture.
The word “culture” originated in the Latin “cultura” which means ‘care’. There are many
words which stem from the term ‘cultura’ such as ‘agriculture’. The word has meanings related
to ‘care’: cultivating, feeding, breeding, and raising. In Korean, we use the term ‘moonhwa 문화’,
borrowing Chinese Characters 文化. 文 means ‘letters’ and 化 means ‘change’. According to the
meaning of the Korean word ‘문화’, it is closely connected human beings’ communication
activities with languages, and it means through the interactions, members of society can
Among many cultural notions, it is useful to examine the one of Edward T. Hall (1989),
because he was an original thinker whom many scholars consider to be the founder of the study
interaction. According to Hall (1989), mankind has been adding to their weaknesses by evolving
various “extensions” (p. 25), cultural elements such as languages, mechanical systems, and social
structures that affect how one perceives one’s culture. Humans are caught in a trap called
“extension transference” (p. 28), thus, culture is lived in an unconscious way. Hall used
“extension transference” to explain the phenomenon, underlining how one loses consciousness or
awareness of one’s culture. Once the extensions are internalized, the author explained cultural
influences on humans’ political acts, decision-making, prioritizing and ways of thinking are not
consciously understood. Culture plays such a prominent part in every aspect of our lives and it is
17
easy for us to be hoodwinked into believing that our convictions are true and universal when in
fact they are not. As a result, human beings marginalize themselves and lose their ability to
control their culture. So long as direct conflicts do not occur in intercultural and interethnic
encounters, culture does not easily come up to the level of consciousness. It is in the
‘background’ and is extraordinarily subtle. Hall (1989) argued that through a process of rigorous
analysis, “identity-separation-growth” (Hall, 1989, p. 227), mankind should make efforts to find
generation, the system hands down through symbols that represent and stand for any aspect of
the culture including beliefs, traditions, and values. Paige’s (2005) definition is “Culture refers to
etc.—the sum total of what a particular group of people has created together, share, and transmit”
(Paige, 2006, p. 43). Culture allows people to convey expressions and understand meanings to
their own lives through symbols such as words, images, ideas, people and actions (Sorrells,
2015). For example, the Bald Eagle is the national symbol of the United States, delivering
meanings of freedom, strength and power. The assigned meaning of symbol constitutes culture
and the symbols are interrelated one another to create a system of meanings. Geertz (1973) also
defined culture as a system. Within the system, there are large arrays of symbols with which
layers; Upper-Case Culture and Lower-Case culture. The first is “Culture writ large” with a
capital “C” (p. 2) such as social, economic, political and linguistic systems. By means of
understanding those objective cultures, people are able to increase their knowledge regarding the
cultures. On the other hand, the subjective culture, “culture writ small” with a small “c” (p. 2)
can generate competence, because subjective culture refers to the psychological features such as
the patterns of beliefs and acts and values of people. Edward T. Hall (1989) was a pioneer in
‘high context communication’ and ‘low context communication,’ for understanding behaviors
across cultures. In high context cultures such as South Korea, Japan, and China, a few words go
a long way. Full meaning is found in the broader context in which the communication occurs. In
contrast, in low context cultures such as the US, German, and the UK, lots of words are needed
A broad understanding of the importance of the cultural dimension in society had been
further expanded and explored in detail by G. Hofstede (2001). He developed value indexes—
measures of traits that appear in cultures. These are outlined in the table below. According to
Hofstede, each index can be regarded as a continuum. Organizations and societies can be placed
along each index. Given that all individuals exhibit various degrees of their own cultures,
categorizing people based on dimensional models and then assuming people’s ways of
understanding and handling the complex reality of our social world (Hofstede, 2011).
Since the 1950s, many scholars from various fields such as business, engineering, health
care, religious organization, tourism, policing, military and education have attempted to
conceptualize the tenets of intercultural competence (IC). They have also explored the
components of IC and tried to find out effective ways of measuring IC. Beyond a pre-
paradigmatic era (before 1950) of the field of intercultural communication, Edward T. Hall
(1959) who concluded “Culture is communication and communication is culture” (p. 186)
emphasized the impact of hidden cultures on human beings’ communicative interactions. Hence,
in the United States, the term ‘intercultural communication’ was conceptualized and introduced
through Hall’s (1959) important book, The Silent Language. During the Cold War era, the US
20
ambassadors to allies such as France and Italy could not speak in the national language of the
countries where they were designated, whereas 90 percent of all Russian diplomatic staff were
able to communicate with the national people in their indigenous language (Rogers, Hart, &
Miike, 2002). As a result, the US government felt the necessity of training political
representatives to become interculturally competent so that they could play a crucial role in
2009). According to scholarly and practical objectives, experts have been conceptualizing IC in
Although the academic areas—language education and intercultural competence are quite
overlapped with each other, some interculturalists leave language concerns to experts of the
the exclusion of language issues. Therefore, we should rethink how to educate interculturality for
people by means of establishing education goals for an individual to understand others and be
However, although Hymes’ (1972) sociolinguistic competence and Stern’s (1983) socio-cultural
competence were introduced to the language education field, “the link with the cultural sphere
21
has been lost because … language teaching has been influenced above all by speech act theory
and discourse analysis, where the linguistic predominates” (Byram, 1997, p. 9). Moreover,
scholars did not address socio-cultural components as thoroughly as the sociolinguistic until “a
framework of reference for language learning and teaching introduced a more nuanced vision”
(as cited in Byram, 1997, p. 8). Actually, observed were “fluent fools” (Bennett, 1997, p.16-21),
namely “individuals … who are fluent in other languages, perhaps dilettantes intrigued by
linguistic systems, without knowledge of the cultures they represent. … also individuals who
have entered other cultures to varying degrees without host language knowledge” (Fantini, 2012,
p. 269). Lusting & Koester (1996) argued that in order to make intercultural communication
occur more effectively, interlocutors should be equipped with intercultural competence. It was
because there was “the crucial link” between culture and communication (p. 27). In 1997, Byram
developed his intercultural communicative competence model, influenced by van Ek’s (1986)
discourse, strategic, socio-cultural, and social competence, emphasizing personal and social
In terms of the concept, models and frameworks of IC and ICC, many researchers have
not actually differentiated between IC and ICC. In order to avoid confusion, I will use the
Spitzberg & Cupach (1984) and Kim (1991) explained the conceptualization of human
actional) (Deardorff, 2009) to include context. Kim (1991) suggested that intercultural
competence as a concept “must be anchored with a person as his or her capacity to manage the
22
varied contexts of the intercultural encounter regardless of the specific cultures involved” (as
cited in Tylor, 1994). In the intercultural contexts, cultural disequilibrium occurs, and the
phenomenon is the catalyst of the IC developing process (Tylor, 1994). Tylor (1994)
conceptualized IC as a transformative process in which individuals could learn ways to deal with
cultural disparities through activating cognitive orientations, learning strategies, and evolving
intercultural identity. Chen and Starosta (1996) mentioned that IC was useful in developing “an
awareness of cultural dynamics” and discerning “multiple identities in order to maintain a state
of multicultural coexistence” (p. 364). In addition, Chen and Starosta (1997) considered
their argument, to interact with others in an effective manner people need intercultural
(curious and opened attitudes), Savoir-comprendre (skills of interpreting and relating), Savoir-
apprendre/faire (skills of discovery and interaction) and Savoir s’engager (critical awareness).
linguistic and cultural differences. Even though over 50 years, many scholars were interested in
IC, attempting to define the term intercultural competence, but they could not reach a consensus
four dimensions: knowledge, attitudes, skills and behaviors (Perry et al., 2011).
experts with regard to a definition and components of IC. Through the Delphi process, the top-
intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (Deardorff,
2004, p. 194). When it comes to common elements of IC, there are three components that
highlight the underlying importance of cultural awareness, not only one’s own but also others’
After categorizing based on similarities among various models, Spitzberg and Changon
developmental, adaptational, and causal path process. Among the five models, I would like to
relations among those components. The models represent the inventory of relevant
Deardorff’s pyramid model. Deardorff (2006) sought to gain intercultural scholars’ consensus
Delphi methodology. As one of findings of the inductive study, the researcher was able to
develop a compositional model of IC, relying on the conceptual perspectives and theories of the
experts who participated in this study. Deardorff pyramid model eliminates long fragmented list
24
through placing factors of IC within a framework that can be approached from various levels, but
in which having components of the lower levels is the premise to reach to the higher levels;
attitude is a primary starting point (Byram, 1997). The model lists not only fundamental
elements, but implicit ordering of them; knowledge and skills follow attitudinal dispositions and
which means intercultural competence evolve over time individually and relationally (Spitzberg
as a framework for understanding cognitive development, not attitudes and behavior, that
learners come to experience in intercultural situations. Teachers should carefully reflect on their
perspectives to detect if unintentional and subtle prejudice are promoted in their classes. DIMS
could be an effective tool to understand a teachers’ world view, because through the DMIS
stages, the level of cultural competency and sensitivity among teachers could be measured (van
Hook, 2000). The assumption underlying the model of DMIS is that as the experiences of
cultural disparities become more sophisticated, one’s intercultural competence increases. In the
DMIS model, there are total six stages along the continuum of intercultural sensitivity. The first
three stages, denial, defense, and minimization, are ethnocentric. People who are dominated by
ethnocentrism consider their own cultures as a center, so they tend to interpret phenomena based
on their own cultures. The rest three stages, acceptance, adaptation, and integration, are
ethnorelative. People who are oriented to ethnorelativism are inclined to understand their own
Even before Bennett’s work, McLeod and Chaffee were exploring a co-orientational
model of IC. Their co-orientation model was developed in order to identify the nature of the
relationships between stakeholders in the process of communication. At the heart of the model,
the question was: what place did mental process and the role of cognition occupy? So as to make
means the central focus is placed not on the message itself between a sender and a receiver but
problems (Simcic Brønn & Brønn, 2003). Due to the relevance of comprehension outcomes of
interactional process with the cognate concept ‘co-orientation’, it is natural that co-orientation
commonalities with co-orientational models had been developed by Byram and his colleagues
(Byram, 1997, 2003; Byram et al., 2001). Byram paid attention to interactions between both
interlocutors who have different “social identities” (Byram, 1997, p. 32). He asserted that
successful interaction could be judged by the effectiveness of information exchange and by the
27
maintenance of human relationship. In addition, unlike other types of models that are primarily
concerned with psychological characteristics, the researcher argued that the ‘intercultural
speaker’ (Byram, 2008, p. 57) needs both intercultural competence and linguist/communicative
competence. Byram’s work is largely in the domain of world languages education. In world
languages field, the two terms—IC and ICC do have specific understanding related to linguistic
competence reached in the target language as well as intercultural competence that also means
five savoirs; Savoir (knowledge), Savoir-etre (curious and opened attitudes), Savoir-comprendre
Byram (1997) placed an emphasis on open and curious attitudes (Savoir-etre) toward
others’ meanings, beliefs, and behaviors under conditions free from any types of pre-
assumptions, no matter those are positive or negative, which could hinder mutual understanding.
When it comes to knowledge (Savoir), there are two broad categories: “knowledge about social
groups and their cultures in one’s own country, and similar knowledge of the interlocutor’s
country on the one hand; knowledge of the processes of interaction at individual and societal
levels, on the other hand” (p. 35). With respect to the first category of knowledge, it is acquired
through both formal and informal process of socialization. The declarative knowledge should be
specific contexts. The skills of interpreting and relating (Savoir-comprendre) are abilities to
misunderstand each other due to their ethnocentrism. The skills of discovery and interaction
knowledge, attitude, and skills so that they are able to interact with those whose culture is
unfamiliar in complex ways. Lastly, Savoir s’engager is ability to evaluate documents and events
in ones’ own and other cultures critically and to mediate in intercultural exchanges in accordance
intercultural’, Byram (2003) contributed to build more precise intercultural competence model.
Bicultural speakers are like to experience two cultures in possession of knowledge, skills, and
attitudes to facilitate effective and appropriate interaction in both cultures. Yet, the person can
“experience conflict and a sense of not knowing where he/she belonged” (Byram, 2003, p. 55).
Whereas, intercultural speakers are more effective mediator between two cultures, because they
29
are able to negotiate the values of different cultures. In terms of their identity, they are flexible so
that they are able to combine aspects of various cultures in performance. The best intercultural
mediators/speakers are those who are able to understand the relationship “between their own
language and language varieties and their own culture and cultures of different social groups in
their society, on the one hand, and the language (varieties) and culture(s) of others, between
(inter) which they find themselves acting as mediators” (Byram, 2003, p. 61).
30
In the foreign language education field, by taking consideration of the native speaker as
model for the learner, there was a tendency to imply that the power in social interaction was
placed in the hands of the native speaker. There was a noticeable premise in van Ek’s (1986)
linguistic and sociolinguistic competences of the model of ‘communicative ability’ (p. 35) and
Byram criticized it. It was that the native speaker was a model for the learners. van Ek asserted
that learners should have used ‘in accordance with the rules of the language concerned,’ and their
utterances should ‘bear their conventional meaning’ (Byram, 1997). Moreover, the scholar failed
to address different language learning environments and conditions between the native speaker
and the nonnative speaker. In both cases, the language that the educated native speaker used was
regarded as a standard and the one that the learners was regarded as incomplete. Another reason
why van Ek’s model was criticized was that the six competences implied that “a learner should
be linguistically schizophrenic, abandoning one language in order to blend into another linguistic
environment, becoming accepted as a native speaker by other native speakers” (Byram, 1997, p.
11). Kramsch (1993) made an important point that according to van Ek’s approach, the native
speakers engage in social interactions with power, upholding the learners’ rights to use a foreign
language for their own purposes. Byram (1997) addressed two kinds of misconceptions that were
two languages perfectly at the level of native speakers, and the learner should separate from
one’s own culture and acquire a native sociocultural competence and a new sociocultural
identity. In addition to that, he concluded that the more desirable outcome of communicative
… a learner with the ability to see and manage the relationships between themselves and their
own cultural beliefs, behaviors and meanings, as expressed in a foreign language, and those of
their interlocutors, expressed in the same language—or even a combination of languages—which
may be the interlocutors’ native language, or not (p. 12).
Furthermore, Byram coined the term ‘intercultural speakers,’ referring those who were in a
English is regarded as a major language that all the world uses in the international
and events. Given the prominent role of English in all areas of human activity and the fact that
acquiring various level of English competence is considered now a life skill and a way toward
future success, it is understandable and predictable that English is now taught as a second or
Due to the power of the culture which English-speaking people possess, the dominance of
English has been observed in different areas, which has been constructed over a long period of
time. Donaldo Macedo (2000) debunked the value of the English Only movement by uncovering
the implicit assumption that English was a superior language and argued that the movement
might be considered as a form of language-based racism in a class society. Macedo (2000) said,
“the attempt to institute proper and effective methods of educating non-English speaking
students cannot be reduced simply to issues of language but rest on a full understanding of the
ideological elements that generate and sustain linguistic, cultural, and racial discrimination,
which represent, in my view, vestiges of a colonial legacy in our democracy” (p. 16). As the
global language, English is no longer only for people who live in English-speaking countries,
which occupy the Inner Circle of Kachuru’s (1992) three-circle model; rather, it is an
international language used for communication between people from various languages and
32
cultures (Crystal, 1997; McArthur, 2003; Pennycook, 2017; Trudgill & Hannah, 2017) and by
many as a ‘lingua franca’ (Grinshaw, 2007; Jenkins, 2013; Onsman, 2012; Seidlhofer, 2005;
2011).
of IC. Which English should we teach in our classes? How can teachers guide students to have
cultures? In what way should teachers increase their students’ cultural awareness so as to let
mentioning “the teaching and learning of an international language must be based on an entirely
different set of assumptions than the teaching and learning of any other second or foreign
language” (p. 1). The author claimed that once a language is internationalized, the language is
“no longer linked to a single culture or nation but serves both global and local needs as a
language of wider communication” (p. 24). Macedo (2000) warned that if people’s mindsets are
held hostage by the neocolonialist language, they are likely to lose their own languages and
cultures, and it could be related to the matter of losing dignity. In this sense, it would be an
effective way to gauge their IC to explore to what extent EL teachers are aware of linguistic
imperialism and in what way they analyze and modify the text book based on critical
perspectives.
analyzes contemporary culture. Cultural studies researchers are in general interested in ways how
33
cultural practices are related to the system of power. In this sense, the field of cultural studies is
distinct from the discipline of cultural anthropology. Traditional anthropologists view cultures as
systems of shared meanings and sets of discrete and stable entities. A cultural anthropologist,
Geertz (1973) defined culture as “an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in
men communicate, perpetuate and develop their knowledge about attitudes towards life” (p. 89).
Grossberg et al. (1992) consider culture as a site of contestation where meanings were constantly
negotiated. They more focuses on the relations of power and the context where cultural practices
are situated historically and politically in understanding culture (Sorrells, 2015). In this sense, it
is clear that the perspective of cultural studies originated in Marxist theories of class struggle and
exploitation. Sorrells points out “through a cultural studies lens, then, the notions of culture shifts
from an expression of local communal lives to a view of culture as an apparatus of power within
a larger system of domination” (p. 6). Byram (1997) assents to the interactionist—Christensen
(1994)’s viewpoint in which the ‘pattern of meanings’ is likely to be that of the dominant group
and the culture is too static to allow for the negotiation within social groups. Christensen
counters the representation of a society’s culture, because a dominant group probably possesses
the culture and makes others believe that it is ‘national’ despite the fact that only a limited group
tackle the given knowledge on culture and be agents for constructing cultural knowledge within
their subjective contexts. Researchers of cultural studies argues that cultural meanings are not
necessarily shared and determined, rather the meanings continue to be challenged, negotiated and
34
each individual person out of various stereotypes generated from grouping people by age,
People are able to build relations between different cultures through processes of
interaction, namely interculturality. Recently there is the trend that many researchers look at the
With a totalizing perspective, multiculturalists tend to prioritize group culture rather than
individual one. Hofstede’s ‘macro-level laws’ (Hofstede, 2001, p. 28) provides the precise
behavioral formulae for how to interact with people from specific cultural groups. If observed
was the behavior which goes against national stereotypes, Hofstedians—cultural essentialists
frames it as an exceptional case (Holliday 2011). However, the sociologist, de Singly argued that
the social phenomenon of simply treating individuals as discrete members of a community, not
as beings possessing multiple identities, belongings, and loyalties. The theorist also mentioned
that “the deceptive nature of various forms of cultural pluralism (a.k.a. multiculturalism) can best
Holliday (2011) and Pillar (2017) contradict the pervasive notion of banal nationalism that treats
the nation as the basis of culture in intercultural dialogue. Especially Pillar expresses his concern
on monolithic and essentialist views of the nation as the foundation of one’s own cultural
identity. The researcher said that “we are never just members of a nation but perform many other
35
identities, too, simultaneously and at different points in our lives” (p. 63). In the censorious
viewpoint, each individual belongs to various cultural groups contemporaneously and negotiates
identities in mutually respectful relationships with others. Similarly, Hahl et al. (2015)
emphasize that there is also cultural diversity within an individual as well as between people who
belong to the same cultural groups. They warned against using the concept of national culture as
an alibi for not analyzing hidden aspects of culture and tolerating cultural ambiguity.
Furthermore, according to the scholars, there is an ironic situation to ‘respect’ someone’s culture,
An increasing number of scholars who are in the field of IC/ICC are posing questions on
The modern, unlike post-modern, idea deceives people into accumulating knowledge of target
language and culture, and honing skills of translating between the target and native languages
and cultures in order to become interculturally competent (Shi-xu, 2001). However, that is overly
activity that is embedded in broader cultural and historical and by implication unequal power
context” (p. 280). According to this scholar, a communication breakdown is not totally attributed
to the lack of relevant knowledge and skills; rather, it is closely related to the existing unequal
power relations. It is because “intercultural communication does not take place in a power
vacuum” (Shi-xu, 2001, p. 286). Intercultural communication is a social practice through which
36
individuals construct and find meanings. These meanings are dependent historical and political
“background context”, rather than “foreground expression” (Shi-xu, 2001, p. 285). Hence, the
theorist inspires people to consider the power dynamic between interlocutors and to challenge
the current discourse of discrimination and exclusion so that they can embrace themes of social
justice and equality. In this respect, Dervin & Hahl. (2015) define IC as a “critical ability to
question the implicit and explicit assumptions behind cultural claims and the power dynamics
Globalization and social justice. The praxis, which is constituted within six interrelated points of
entry, presents a process of critical and reflective thinking and acting. The author developed the
challenging intercultural spaces. The purpose of engaging in the intercultural praxis is to raise
cultural awareness and critical analysis, and increase the sense of social responsibilities with
regard to intercultural interactions. The theoretical framework is not only about intercultural
communication per se, but practical ways of “being, thinking, analyzing, reflecting and acting”
(p. 15).
6.3.1.Intercultural praxis
There are six interrelated ports in the intercultural praxis: inquiry, framing, positioning,
dialogue, reflection, and action. Inquiry is a port of entry for intercultural praxis. It refers to a
willingness to know, to ask, and to learn. An individual who has a curious inquiry about culture
is willing to engage with others from different cultural backgrounds. While it sounds simple, the
inquiry of this praxis urges people to take risks in challenging their own cultural norms and being
37
tackled about their own cultural values by others. By virtue of embracing a curious inquiry
toward cultural differences and a willingness to suspend any types of judgement on other
cultures, people are able to step through one of the doors of entry into intercultural praxis. In
terms of framing, it connotes a person’s view of him/herself, others, and the world. The frames
tend to constrain a person’s flexibility so that they take a rigid attitude toward the different
cultures of conversation partners. Hence, Sorrells (2015) argues that we need to be aware of the
frames of reference from which we view and experience the world. Another important aspect of
framing is being aware of the local and global contexts that influence intercultural interactions.
Interlocutors should have capabilities to narrow and broaden their frames. By doing so, they
could understand the micro-level differences in communication styles and to look at the
relations of power (Sorrells, 2015). The author summarizes the framing as follow:
positioning would be related to social and political positions. The globe is stratified based on
culture, race, class, age, gender, nationality, religion, and physical abilities and the hierarchical
categories place us socially, politically, and materially in relations to each other and in relations
to power (Sorrells, 2015). It is important for you to recognize that your positionality might
change based on where you are and with whom you interact. Sorrells (2015) encapsulates the
positioning, mentioning “Positioning, … directs us to interrogate who can speak and who is
silenced; whose language is spoken and whose language trivialized or denied; whose actions
38
have the power to shape and impact others and whose actions are dismissed, unreported, and
marginalized (p. 18).” When it comes to ‘dialogue,’ the original meaning of it is a stream of
meaning through and between people and dialogue results in new understandings (Bohm, 1996).
Due to the difference in power and positionality, intercultural dialogue entails tensions.
According to Sorrells, “cognizant of differences and the tension that emerge from these
differences, the process of dialogue invites us to … engage with points of view, ways of thinking
and being, and beliefs different from our own” (p. 19). In the intercultural praxis, reflection is a
key feature. Reflection is central to the other points of entry: inquiry, framing, positioning, and
dialogue. Sorrells emphasizes action in order to complete the concept of intercultural praxis. She
argues that critical and reflective understanding ourselves, others, and the world should be
followed by responsible action to make the world more socially just, equitable, and peaceful.
39
that make intercultural communication successful in an effective and appropriate way. The
model of intercultural praxis which is concerning a way of being in the world, presents a
blueprint for developing intercultural competence. Engaging in the praxis connotes joining
critical and reflective analysis with informed actions for global justice. Sorrells (2015) elaborates
true and real. As an intercultural competence, inquiry require motivation to be curious about
others and ourselves. The curious inquiry leads people to step outside of their comfort zones.
influence how to recognize oneself and others and how to interpret phenomenon. Moreover, at
the point of framing in the intercultural praxis, people are required to be flexible to shift their
own perspectives from micro-, situated dimension, to macro-, global dimension of intercultural
power, people should be cognizant of the positions of communicators. At the positioning phase,
individuals are needed to be prepared to respond to the critical questions: whose behaviors and
communication styles are seen as ‘normal’?, why do you think so?, and who benefits if we
believe and act in accordance with the so-called ‘truth’? In dialogue of intercultural interactions,
be open-minded toward ambiguity, anxiety, and tension which arise from cultural differences.
whose values, beliefs, and behaviors are formed by one’s own cultures. Lastly, action as a way of
actualizing our increased knowledge is observed in the forms of analyzing and reflecting within
References
Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (Eds.). (2017). The globalization of world politics: An
sensitivity. In R. M. Piage (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21-71).
Bennett, M. J. (1997). How not to be a fluent fool: Understanding the cultural dimension of
of Europe.
Brody, J. (2003). A linguistic anthropological perspective on language and culture in the second
language curriculum. In D.L. Lange & R. M. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core:
Multilingual Matters.
43
Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship:
education, 2, 50-66.
Byram, M., Nichols, A., & Stevens, D. (Eds.). (2001). Developing intercultural competence in
Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1997). A review of the concept of intercultural sensitivity.
Cho, H. Y., Kim, M. K., & Lee, M. O. (2013). Realities and difficulties of English education for
young children of North Korean refugee mothers. Korean Journal of Child Care, 9(5),
201-228.
NC,USA.
Byram and A. Feng (Eds.) Living and studying abroad: Research and practice (pp. 232-
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic books.
Grant, C. A., & Portera, A. (Eds.). (2010). Intercultural and multicultural education: Enhancing
Grossberg, L., Nelson, C., & Treichler, P. (1992). Cultural studies. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hahl, K., Niemi, P.-M., Johnson Longfor, R., & Dervin, F. (Eds.). (2015). Diversities and
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings
Huang, Y., Rayner, C., & Zhuang, L. (2003). Does intercultural competence matter in
Dervin, F., & Hahl, K. (2015). Developing a portfolio of intercultural competences in teacher
Gyeonggi-do Foreigner Human Rights Supports Center. (2016). The actual conditions of racial
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University
Press
Jung, S. Y. (2010). On the analysis of North Korean English Textbooks in the middle school
http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T11907803
(33).
Korean Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. (2011). Study on the revision of
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46
Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: a critical review of concepts and
University Press.
Kwon, H. (2017). A study on the maladjustment factors experienced by North Korea refugees
Kymlicka W. (2010), “The rise and fall of multiculturalism? New debates on inclusion and
Routledge, Abingdon.
Lee, B., Yang, H., & Kwon, O. (2006). The real state of affairs of North Korean English
Lee, M. W. (2014). A participatory EFL curriculum for the marginalized: The case of North
Lee, R. J. (2007). Comparative analysis of the South and North Koreans’ English textbooks
http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T11101893
Macedo, D. (2000). The colonialism of the English only movement. Educational Researcher,
29(3), 15-24.
McArthur, T. (2003). Oxford guide to world English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oh, S. R. (2008). A study on English education for North Korean students in the South Korean
alternatives school (Master’s thesis). Chongshin University data base. Retrieved from
http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T11396876
Onsman, A. (2012). Distributing the future evenly: English as the lingua franca in the Saudi
Paige, R. M. (2005). Culture learning dimensions. In J. Bennett & R. M. Paige (Eds.), Workshop
manual: Training design for international and multicultural programs. Portland, OR:
Parekh B. (2006), Rethinking multiculturalism: Cultural diversity and political theory (2nd
Park, Y. W., Park, K. H., Kim, J. C., Koh, K. S., & Jung, K. J. (2001). An analysis North Korean
Pennycook, A. (2017). The cultural politics of English as an international language. New York,
NY: Routledge.
48
Perry, L. B., & Southwell, L. (2011). Developing intercultural understanding and skills: Models
10.1080/14675986.2011.644948
Pieterse, J. N. (2015). Globalization and culture: Global mélange. London: Rowman &
Littlefield.
University Press.
Popkewitz, T. S., Rizvi, F. (2009). Globalization and the study of education. Chicago: NSSE.
Rogers, E.M., Hart, W.B., & Miike, Y. (2002). Edward T. Hall and the history of intercultural
communication: The United States and Japan. Keio Communication Review, 24, 3-26.
Satyanath, S. (2006). Globalization, politics and financial turmoil: Asia’s banking crisis.
theoretical nature and practical implications of English used as a lingua franca. Oxford:
Shin, J., Kim, K., Par, S., Kim, Y., Lee, J., Cho, Y., Kim, H., Lee, Y., & Choi, S. (2012).
Simcic Brønn, P., & Brønn, C. (2003). A reflective stakeholder approach: co-orientation as a
291-303.
Sorrells, K. (2015). Intercultural communication: globalization and social justice. Los Angeles,
Spitzberg, B. H., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural competence. The SAGE
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence (Vol. 4).
Press.
Suarez-Orozco, M. M., & Qin-Hilliard, D. (2004). Globalization: Culture and education in the
Trudgill, P., & Hannah, J. (2017). International English: A guide to varieties of English around
United Nations Development Programme. (1999). Human development report. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
van Ek, J. A. (1993). Objectives for foreign language learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
van Hook, C. W. (2000). Preparing teachers for the diverse classroom: A developmental model
IL.