relationship between intercultural communicative competence and l2-learning motivation of iranian...

This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 28 October 2014, At: 09:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Intercultural CommunicationResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjic20

Relationship Between InterculturalCommunicative Competence and L2-Learning Motivation of Iranian EFLLearnersAzizullah Mirzaei & Faranak ForouzandehPublished online: 20 Aug 2013.

To cite this article: Azizullah Mirzaei & Faranak Forouzandeh (2013) RelationshipBetween Intercultural Communicative Competence and L2-Learning Motivation of IranianEFL Learners, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 42:3, 300-318, DOI:10.1080/17475759.2013.816867

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2013.816867

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjic20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/17475759.2013.816867

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2013.816867

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Relationship Between InterculturalCommunicative Competence andL2-LearningMotivation of Iranian EFLLearnersAzizullahMirzaei & Faranak ForouzandehIn today’s interconnected multicultural world, citizens’ differential levels ofintercultural communicative competence (ICC) can play an important role in theamount of enthusiasm, time, and efforts they invest in second or foreign language

(L2) communication and learning. ICC has recently found its way into L2 theory andresearch. This study attempted to first develop a measure of ICC and then explore the

relationship between Iranian L2 learners’ ICC and their L2 learning motivation, onthe one hand, and between gender and the development of ICC, on the other. The

participants were 180 B.A. English Literature/Translation and M.A. TEFL (TeachingEnglish as a Foreign Language) students at several Iranian universities. A test battery

including the final version of the ICC questionnaire and an L2-learning motivationquestionnaire adapted from Gardner’s attitude/motivation test battery was then

administered to a random selection of 70 students (M = 30 and F = 40). Thecorrelation results indicated that there was a strong, positive relationship between L2learners’ ICC and L2-learning motivation. Meanwhile, t-test results demonstrated that

Iranian female and male L2 learners did not possess different levels of ICC. Thefinding related to the ICC and motivation association suggests that an account of ICC

development be incorporated into L2 teachers’ classroom agendas at differenteducational levels.

Keywords: Intercultural Communicative Competence; L2 Learning Motivation; L2

Communication and Learning; Gender

(Received 17 September 2012; final version received 15 June 2013)

Azizullah Mirzaei is Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Shahrekord University. Correspondence to

Azizullah Mirzaei, English Department, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahrekord University,

Shahrekord, Iran. Email: [email protected]. Faranak Forouzandeh teaches at Islamic Azad University of

Farsan.

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 2013Vol. 42, No. 3, 300–318, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2013.816867

� 2013 World Communication Association

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Introduction

In second or foreign language (L2) research and education, learners’ developmentof intercultural communicative competence (ICC), or the communicative

proficiency to interact appropriately with people from other cultures (i.e. tounderstand and negotiate both linguistic and cultural differences), is of prime

importance (Atay, Kurt, Camlibel, Ersin, & Kaslioglu, 2009; Byram & Feng, 2005;Sebnem, Dicle, & Guldem, 2009; Sercu, 2002). It is now argued that navigating

intercultural differences in an ever-shrinking world requires more than theaccumulation of purely linguistic facts and requires competence in negotiatingdifferences appropriately using language, or relating effectively to otherness

(Byram, 1997; East, 2012). Additionally, the notion of ICC seems to be conceptu-ally linked to the major individual-differences (i.e. characteristics or traits in

respect of which individuals may be shown to differ from each other) variable ofL2 motivation. Previous research has shown that L2 motivation can significantly

affect language learning success and, in some cases, can override the effect oflanguage aptitude (i.e. a specific talent for learning foreign languages which

exhibits considerable variation between learners) (Dornyei, 2005; Dornyei &Skehan, 2003). Motivation provides the initial impetus for L2 learning and the

subsequent driving force for the learner’s perseverance with the long and oftentedious learning process.Early on in this line of research, Gardner and Lambert (1959), Gardner and

Lambert (1972) argued that learners’ understanding of other cultures and desireto be in some sense closer to speakers of an L2 (in their terminology, integrative

motivation) are considered the best basis for achievement and success inlanguage learning. Dornyei and Csizer’s (1998) research yields further evidence

that competency to approach and understand a target language culture is animportant variable with certain links to language-learning motivation. Nonethe-

less, Byram (2008) and Byram and Feng (2005) argue that the assumption of acausal relationship between language learning or motivation and understandingof and attitudes toward other and foreign cultures has been sparingly researched

and thus needs much more research. Part and parcel of this research shouldcome from language-learning contexts where two spatially (and perhaps politi-

cally) segregated cultures come into contact and where L2 learners are expectedto be differentially predisposed to communicate with the target language culture

and are, as a result, differently competent or motivated to use or learn theforeign language. The context of this study characterizes such a geo-political,

intercultural boundary between post-revolutionary Iran and the English-speakingcountries (especially the US), where Iranian L2 learners of English are the focal

point of attention.The Iranian revolution of 1979 soon led to widespread cynicism on the side of

the revolutionaries about diplomacy and intercultural relationships with other

countries, especially the Western powers that had supposedly supported the Shah’stoppled regime. Specifically, subsequent incidents, such as the Shah’s sojourn in

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 301

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

the United States, occupation of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, and the American

hostages, gradually resulted in prolonged fierce political and perhaps culturaldisputes between Iran and the United States. This political and ideological

antagonism influenced almost all post-revolutionary changes and developments inIran, including curricular changes in the EFL (English as a foreign language)

educational system. Since then, the fundamental goal of EFL education has beenperceived to be, not to communicate with the English-speaking others, but rather

to access the original scientific and academic sources through English. However,along with recent advances in information technology and telecommunication,

and after the rise of English as the language of global trade, commerce, and sci-ence, a majority of people in Iran have progressively changed their perceptionsand attitudes toward the need to maintain intercultural communication with the

world and toward the English language (Eslami & Fatahi, 2008). Despite thisbreakthrough, Iranian EFL learners still demonstrate differential predispositions

and competence to enter into intercultural communication with (especially Eng-lish-speaking) others, which seems to considerably influence their L2-learning

motivation and in turn their language-learning success. For instance, there arefamilies and learners who display strict adherence to the cultural and religious

values revitalized after the 1979 revolution and regard uncontrolled access andcontact with the Western culture unconstructive (or even dangerous), and arethus very selective in terms of what and how much of intercultural communica-

tion and in turn L2 learning. On the other hand, there has recently been anincreasingly shared conviction among many Iranians that no foreign culture is

inherently harmful and that familiarity and communication with other culturesand languages are even necessities of modern life. Nonetheless, the issue of

whether learners are differentially predisposed toward intercultural understandingand communication in Iran and really differently motivated to learn an L2 needs

to be extensively researched and documented.The findings of this line of research can underscore ICC as a key to success

in intercultural communication, in general, and L2 learning, in particular. Inthis regard, there is already a strong argument going on in the field that an L2learner who does not learn the L2 culture runs the risk of “becoming a fluent

fool” (Bennett, Bennett, & Allen, 2003, p. 237). A fluent fool L2 learner speaksan L2 well but is not acquainted with the values, beliefs, and cultural

dimensions which constitute the heart of language. Given that ICC is a keycomponent of communication and language-learning success in today’s global

village (Kim & Hubbard, 2007), it is equally important to research how itsdevelopment is influenced (or conditioned) by different societal forces and

individual characteristics.Post-revolutionary changes in Iran also dramatically influenced and re-defined

gender roles and differences in the society. Islam, the dominant ideology of pres-

ent-day Iran, strictly limits individuals’, especially females’, aspirations to reach outto others or, at least, to certain aspects of other cultures. Gender roles and

differences thus appear to have played a considerable role in shaping L2 learners’

302 A. Mirzaei & F. Forouzandeh

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

intercultural communication tendencies as well as their L2 motivation in the

after-revolution religious society of Iran. In short, this current research was anattempt to bring ICC out from the shadow in the Iranian EFL-learning context

and probe its association with L2 motivation. Additionally, it was deemed impor-tant to focus on how ICC can be explained by gender constraints and differences

as defined by Iranian society and culture.

Theoretical Background

The origin of communication competence as a subject of interest can be traced

back to Aristotle’s rhetoric (Chen, 1989; Zarrinabadi, 2012). In practice, however,importance of ICC emerged from the time when human beings recognized the

need to encounter the other with a different culture in interaction and to experi-ence what it means to relate to otherness (East, 2012). As the world now grows

increasingly interrelated, ICC gains more momentum for it can play a significantpart in the success of intercultural communication (Huang, Rayner, & Zhuang,2003), and when intercultural communication is neglected, its difficulties are pain-

fully recognized (Kim & Hubbard, 2007). Grein (2007) echoes this transformation,stating that, due to the existence of about 6900 languages spoken in the world,

“dialogue across the boundaries of languages, countries and cultures has becomean unavoidable necessity of our life in the 21st century” (p. 9). Despite the current

consensus on the importance of ICC, its definition, dimensions, and assessmenthave been disputable and thorny. Over the years, however, several attempts have

been made in the literature to conceptualize the notion and explore the factorsaffecting it (e.g. Baxter Magolda, 2000; Byram, 1997; Deardorff, 2004; Deardorff,

2009; Fantini, 2000; Guilherme, 2000; Neuliep, 2012; Sercu, 2004; Teven,Richmond, McCroskey, & McCroskey, 2010). According to Taylor (1994), ICC is atransformative process in the sense that learning to successfully deal with different

cultures entails cultural knowledge, communicative competence, personal attitudes,self-awareness, and knowing others’ values and norms. Furthermore, ICC can help

individuals “to develop an awareness of cultural dynamics and to discern multipleidentities in order to maintain a state of multicultural coexistence” (Chen &

Starosta, 1996, p. 364). Recent approaches also highlight ICC as the ability tonegotiate linguistic and cultural differences appropriately using language, or to

relate to otherness effectively (Byram, 1997; East, 2012). For Wiseman (2002,p. 208), ICC is “the knowledge, motivation, and skills to interact effectively andappropriately with members of different cultures.” Similarly, Hammer, Bennet,

and Wiseman (2003) view ICC as the ability to think and act in interculturallyappropriate ways.

Deardorff (2006), using a Delphi-process, asked 23 top intercultural expertsfrom the United States to propose definitions of ICC, pool their views, and

reach consensus on key fundamentals and proper assessment methods. Theywelcomed seven definitions with more than 80% agreement. The definition,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

which stood out from the rest, was “the ability to communicate effectively and

appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s intercultural knowledge,skills and attitudes” (2006, p. 13). In this view, knowledge encompasses cultural

self-awareness, widening culture-related information, and fostering linguisticknowledge; skills refers to the ability to communicate across cultures; and atti-

tudes include cherishing and being open to other different cultures, havingpositive attitudes toward different cultures, and enduring ethnocentric behaviors

(Deardorff, 2006).In principle, ICC is related to intellectual tolerance, human understanding, and

adaptability which are generally categorized as educational goals around the world(Zhao, 2002). L2 researchers have recently showed growing interest in the applica-tion of social-cultural theories of mind, learning, and education. In practice, more

attention is devoted to language-culture reciprocity, in the sense that language putscultural reality into words and is dynamically shaped by culture (Kramsch, 1998).

This has in turn led to increased emphasis being put on teaching language for ICC(Byram, 2008; Byram & Feng, 2005; Byram & Zarate, 1997; East, 2012). According

to Kiet Ho (2009), it is essential for modern L2 teaching and learning to incorpo-rate ICC in the language learning process and to recognize the impossibility of sep-

arating language and culture from each other. Therefore, language teachers shouldplan pedagogical tasks and activities that can promote L2 learners’ ICC andprepare them to meet the requirement of effectively acting in a global village

(Ortiz & Moore, 2000).In terms of the influence of this view on L2 research, Sercu (2002) attempted to

probe whether and to what extent Flemish English, French, and German foreignlanguage teachers had intercultural aims and were interested in promoting ICC

acquisition in the course of their L2 teaching. The results were also compared tothose obtained with respect to Danish and British teachers in an earlier study. It

was revealed that most teachers pursued intercultural aims and were interested inpromoting the acquisition of ICC through their instructions. Sercu, however,

cautioned that their teaching practices can as yet not be characterized as directedtoward the full attainment of ICC. In a similar study, Atay et al. (2009)investigated the attitudes of Turkish EFL teachers on ICC teaching and found that

ICC-oriented attitudes were in one way or another mirrored in their classrooms.More specifically, although language teachers did not particularly combine culture

with their teaching to develop ICC in their learners, they were alert of the role ofculture in L2 education. Still, Sebnem et al. (2009) focused on the intercultural

sensitivity levels of university students and the role of education and interculturalexperience in the development of their ICC and found that more engagement in

international interactions led to comparable improvement in the students’ respectfor different cultures.Despite the rather widespread recognition of the role of ICC, more research

efforts are needed to investigate the development and assessment of ICC in L2research and education. First and foremost, further research is required to focus

on the question of what ICC is because there is still lack of agreement on what


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

constitutes its essential components (Kim & Hubbard, 2007). This direction was

taken up in this study as the first goal probing the ICC dimensions in the IranianL2-learning context based on Deardorff’s (2006) framework. Deardorff’s ICC

model was used since it originally drew upon a theoretical consensus among agroup of experts and, further, its components (e.g. fostering linguistic knowledge

and having positive attitudes toward different cultures) seem to be much moreapplicable to contexts where L2 learning and (integrative) motivation are of prime

importance. Second, complementary studies should examine how and why ICC canbe important to other neighboring disciplines to communication. As to the field of

second or foreign language teaching and learning, this study perceives it as highlyilluminating to attempt to relate ICC to one of the most influential socio-affectivevariables in L2 research and pedagogy, namely L2-learning motivation. If ICC is

evidenced to be in any way linked to learners’ L2 motivation—that is largely con-sidered as the key to language-learning success in the present-day world—different

individual mechanisms and sociocultural forces influential in ICC development orvariability should then be explored. For instance, it is of considerable interest to

explore whether differently legitimized gender identities and roles in differentsocieties or cultures play any significant part in language learners’ sociolinguistic,

discourse, and intercultural competence (Byram, 1997; Higgins, 2010; Jack, 2009;Saft & Ohara, 2004). This was another goal of the current study as well.As noted above, motivation is of great importance in L2 learning, without which

even learners with the most remarkable cognitive abilities cannot accomplishlong-term goals (Dornyei, 2005). In other words, differential L2 motivation can

noticeably encourage or avert L2 learners’ autonomy, learning process, and learn-ing success (Cheng & Dornyei, 2007; Dornyei, 2001; Ehrman, 2000; Gardner,

1985). Different psychological, personality, and social-cultural factors influence L2learners’-learning motivation and achievement (Dornyei, 2005; Linnenbrink &

Pintrich, 2002; Pintrich, 2003). Recent research has also shown that readiness toeffectively engage with otherness and attitudes toward L2 speakers and culture play

a decisive role in a learner’s motivational dispositions (Aleksandrowicz-Pedich,Draghicescu, Issaiass, & Sabec, 2003; Byram, 2008; Byram & Feng, 2005; Csizer &Dornyei, 2005; Dornyei & Csizer, 2002; Gardner & Lambert, 1959; Gardner &

Lambert, 1972). Nevertheless, Byram (2008) emphasizes that the reciprocalrelationship between language-learning motivation and intercultural insights

and attitudes, despite its importance, is one that has been under-explored inmainstream motivation research.

Gender differences regularly feature in research on discourse, communication,and language learning. For instance, Tannen’s (1994) research showed that men

and women use highly gendered discourses and employ interactional features suchas overlap, eye-contact, and topic initiation differently in communication since theyare exposed to different sociolinguistic subcultures. Recent gender studies have gen-

erally acknowledged that societal structures basically intersect with gender to shapeopportunities and constraints of males and females in their access to language edu-

cation, language use, and in the case of this study, intercultural communication


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

(Kobayashi, 2007; Kouritzin, 2000; Warriner, 2007). As to the role of gender in L2

learners’ ICC, contradictory results were reported in the literature indicating higherICC levels for either female L2 learners (e.g. Clark & Trafford, 1995; Sung & Padilla,

1998) or, conversely, for male learners (e.g. Kim & Goldstein, 2005; Pan, 2007).Yet, other studies found no relationship between L2 learners’ gender and their ICC

(Matveev, 2002; Patricia, 2005). This controversy highlights the need for furtherresearch to explore gendered ICC differences (if any) in different societies.

The Study

As mentioned above, this study intended to explore the relationship between ICCand L2-learning motivation among Iranian L2 learners. In addition, the study was

interested in the scrutiny of any association between Iranian L2 learners’ genderand their ICC. As such, the study addressed the following research questions:

(1) Is there any significant association between Iranian L2 learners’ ICC and

their L2 learning motivation?(2) Is there any significant difference between male and female L2 learners’ ICC

in Iran?

Method

Participants

The participants of the study were a total sample of 180 (B.A. and M.A.) students

majoring in English Literature, English Translation, and TEFL (Teaching Englishas a Foreign Language) at three universities in the southwest and center of Iran.These students participated in different phases of test construction and develop-

ment (10 in pilot-testing and 100 in test development) and then in the main data-collection part of the study (n = 70; 30 males and 40 females). Different minimum

sample sizes are statistically needed to use the different statistical procedures offactor analysis to ensure construct validity of the ICC instrument (100 in the case

of this study) and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (at least 30 ineach group). Therefore, only as many people as needed for each statistical test were

sampled due to the impracticalities involved. Furthermore, in recent years, moreIranian women have entered universities than men. Its sampling repercussion forresearch has been, in many cases, the inevitable option to proceed with a dispro-

portionate number of males and females. None of the students hired in this studyhad traveled or studied in English-speaking countries. As to Iranian students’ L2

background, they studied EFL for three years at junior high school and for fouryears at senior high school before entering university. In Iranian schools, EFL

teaching is mostly characterized as an attempt to enable students to use Englishfor academic purposes such as reading course books and journal articles, and, out-

side the EFL classrooms, they have very little exposure to authentic oral English.More recently, however, advances in the access and use of the Internet and satellite


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TV programs have motivated students to engage in interactions with speakers of

other cultures or have more than ever raised their intercultural awareness (Eslami& Fatahi, 2008).

Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedure

In order to measure participants’ ICC (intercultural communicative competence),an intercultural communicative competence questionnaire (ICCQ) was con-

structed, drawing on Deardorff (2006). As noted earlier, this ICC framework wasdeveloped based on a Delphi-process—relying on some intercultural experts’

conceptions—and is very applicable to L2-learning contexts. The ICCQ items firstreceived two experts’ judgments to ensure instrument can operationalize or tap the

L2 learners’ ICC as theorized by Deardorff (2006). The instrument was then pilot-tested with 10 students and the modified items were administered to 100 students

to ensure the construct validity and the reliability of the instrument.The ICCQ initially included 26 items for assessing knowledge, skills, and attitude

through a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree

(5). Knowledge items assessed cultural self-awareness, culture-related information,linguistic knowledge, and sociolinguistic awareness. Skill items evaluated the

participants’ ability to communicate across cultures. Finally, attitude items wereintended to assess the respondents’ respect and openness to different cultures and

their ambiguity tolerance (Deardorff, 2006). After checking the suitability of thecollected data for confirmatory factor analysis, the items were subjected to principal

components analysis (PCA) using the data of 100 learners. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklinvalue was .61, exceeding the recommended value of 0.6, and the Bartlett’s Test of

Sphericity reached statistical significance (p < .01), indicating that there was evi-dence of rather strong interrelations among the items supporting the factorabilityof the correlation matrix. PCA revealed the presence of six components with eigen-

values exceeding 1. In order to decide how many and which components to retain,it was necessary to further inspect the scree test and Parallel Analysis results. An

inspection of the scree plot revealed a clear break after the fourth component.However, using the Parallel Analysis results, it was eventually decided to retain

three components for further investigation. The three component solutionexplained a total of 47.03% of the variance. Oblimin rotation was then used to

check the loadings of the items on the components. There was a weak positive cor-relation between the factors (r = .04), indicating that similar solutions would beobtained from the Varimax and Oblimin rotation and, in this case, it was necessary

to proceed with the Oblimin rotation. The factor loadings (summarized in Table 1)showed that 12 items loaded fairly strongly on Component 1, 5 items on Compo-

nent 2, and 5 items on Component 3. The interpretation of the (rotated) loadingseventually led to the use of only 22 items in the ICC instrument, with higher scores

on the test representing higher ICC levels (Min = 22 and Max = 110). The ICCQalso enjoyed an acceptable reliability estimate ( = .71) using Cronbach’s alpha.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table

1PCAPattern

andStructure

MatrixofThreeFactorSolutionforICCQ

Item

s.

Item

No.

Pattern

Coefficients

Structure

Coefficients

Communalities

Component1

Component2

Component3

Component1

Component2

Component3

10.64

.09

.18

.65

.12

.22

.50

17.62

.18

.24

.62

.20

.04

.47

15.61

.07

.22

.61

.09

.22

.43

5.58

.04

–.02

.58

.06

.18

.34

20.56

–.29

.05

.57

.24

.21

.40

7.56

–.19

–.12

.55

–.17

.14

.39

13.56

.22

.07

.55

–.27

.06

.37

12.50

.13

.16

.50

.05

–.02

.40

16.48

.18

.15

.48

.11

.06

.39

2.45

–.02

.11

.45

.00

.03

.42

14.42

.07

.23

.43

.09

.19

.34

18.58

–.19

.16

.58

–.17

.21

.31

3–.14

.36

.23

–.01

.46

.14

.32

11.19

.70

.21

.22

.71

.16

.57

21.03

.62

.16

.05

.63

.03

.41

19.16

.59

.18

.18

.52

.14

.41

8.36

.49

.00

.38

.51

.06

.47

1.33

.12

.42

.34

.23

.43

.30

6.23

.01

.41

.22

.22

.40

.32

4.12

.19

.39

.14

.18

.40

.30

9–.23

.22

.36

–.21

.19

.36

.33

22–.21

.29

.52

–.18

.27

.53

.35

Note.Majorloadings

foreach

item

arebolded.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

In addition, a multiple-choice L2 motivation questionnaire was adapted from

Gardner’s (2004) attitude/motivation test battery (AMTB) and used to assessparticipants’ L2 (here, English) learning motivation. Each of the motivational inten-

sity and desire to learn English (originally, French) subscales consisted of 10 slightlymodified items, and a higher score on each was interpreted as a higher level in the

related scale. Participants were asked to answer the 20 items by circling the optionsmost applicable to their personal feelings. Accordingly, a high total score on the

measure indicated a high degree of motivation to acquire an L2 (Min = 20 andMax = 60). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the questionnaire

was = .71, suggesting an acceptable reliability estimate given that the questionnairewas only a part of the longer AMTB (that includes other subscales as well). In addi-tion, the mean inter-item correlation (r = .58, p < .01) indicated a positive relation-

ship among the items in favor of internal consistency concerns.As to the data collection procedure, the constructed ICCQ (see Appendix) was

first administered to measure the participants’ ICC. Then, the multiple-choice L2motivation questionnaire was administered to examine the participants’ motivation

toward learning an L2. Finally, an adjunct questionnaire was used to collect the par-ticipants’ necessary demographic, for instance, gender or any prior experience of

traveling or studying in any English-speaking country. At last, descriptive statistics,correlational analysis, and t-test were conducted to address the research questionsof the study.

Results

First, descriptive statistics were computed for the gender, ICC, and L2-learning

motivation of the participants. Then, to explore the association between the L2learners’ ICC and their L2-learning motivation, a Pearson product-momentcorrelation was run. Further, to find out whether the Iranian male and female L2

learners possessed different levels of ICC, an independent sample t-test wasconducted. The descriptive statistics are displayed in Table 2.

As it is shown in the above table, there were 30 male (42.9%) and 40 female(57.1%) EFL students in the sample. Regarding the participants’ ICC scores (Min

= 22 and Max = 110), the mean score of the males (82.60) was similar to the

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for the Male-Female L2 learners’ ICC and L2Motivation.

Gender n Percent Min Max Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis

ICC Males 30 42.9 66 102 82.60 11.87 .35 –1.10Females 40 57.1 73 103 82.30 7.25 .26 .20Total 70 100 66 103 82.43 9.43 .63 –.22

L2 Motivation Males 30 42.9 34 56 42.00 5.64 1.04 .22Females 40 57.1 36 55 43.30 4.88 .70 –.01Total 70 100 34 56 42.74 5.22 .79 –.09


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

mean score of the females (82.30). As to their L2 motivation (Min = 20 and Max= 60), the mean score of the males (42.00) was a little lower than the mean score

of the females (43.00). The skewness and kurtosis values indicated that thenormality assumptions were met.

Then, a Pearson product-moment correlation was used to explore the relation-ship between the EFL students’ ICC and L2-learning motivation. Preliminary anal-

yses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality,linearity, and homoscedasticity. Table 3 shows the results of the correlation for

ICC and L2 motivation scores.As Table 3 shows, there was a strong positive correlation between L2 learners’

ICC and L2-learning motivation, r = .63, n = 70, p < .01, with high levels of ICC

being associated with higher levels of L2-learning motivation.Finally, an independent sample t-test was computed to find out whether there

was any significant difference between the ICC scores of male and femaleparticipants. The t-test results for ICC scores of the two groups of the participants

are presented in Table 4.

As Table 4 displays, there was no significant difference between the male EFLstudents’ ICC mean score (M = 82.6, SD = 11.86) and that of the females (M =

82.3, SD = 7.25), t (70) = .122, p = .90. That is, the Iranian EFL male learners didnot perform differently on the ICC questionnaire in comparison with the female

learners. The magnitude of the differences in the means was very small (etasquared = .0002), suggesting that gender differences do not seem to have resultedin significant differences in the participants’ ICC in this study.

Discussion

ICC is the ability to efficiently establish worldwide (intercultural) communication.

This study focused on the contribution of ICC to L2-learning motivation. As

Table 3 Results of Pearson Product-moment Correlation between the L2 Learners’ICC and L2 Motivation.

L2 Learning Motivation Sig. (2-tailed) n

ICC .63 .00⁄⁄ 70

⁄⁄p < .005.

Table 4 Independent Sample t-test for the Male-Female ICC Differences.

Gender n Mean SD t Sig.

ICC Males 30 82.60 11.87 0.122 0.90Females 40 82.30 7.25

p > .05.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

noted above, the correlation results indicated that there was a strong, positive

relationship between the L2 learners’ ICC and their L2-learning motivation. There-fore, it can be argued that L2 learners’ ICC is closely associated with their

L2-learning motivation. This finding supports an argument made much earlier inL2 motivation literature by Gardner and Lambert (1959), Gardner and Lambert

(1972) that learners’ understanding of other cultures and attitudes toward the L2community is favorably linked to their motivation and achievement in language

learning. Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) and Dornyei and Csizer (1998), Dornyeiand Csizer (2002) also found evidence in favor of this argument. However, because

this area has been researched sparingly over the years (Byram, 2008; Byram &Feng, 2005), this evidenced association will be of great significance particularly tothe scarce literature on the contribution of intercultural communication disposi-

tions to L2 motivation and language-learning success. Simply put, the results sug-gest that L2 learners who possess a proclivity to reach out to other cultures and

people are more inclined to learn foreign or second languages. In more practicalterms, L2 learners with high levels of ICC show more curiosity and enthusiasm to

engage in social interaction with members of other groups or speakers of other lan-guages, for instance by venturing to converse with tourists, exchange information,

and reflect upon cross-cultural variations and attractions. These motivated L2 userscan approach culture bumps and ambiguous conditions with audacity and greaterfacility. On the other hand, L2 learners with lower levels of ICC may simply avoid

such learning opportunities. Therefore, ICC can be viewed as conceptually linkedto L2-learning motivation and communication tendency.

On its own, L2 learners’ motivation, as one major source of learner-specific vari-ations, is considered fundamental in L2 learning and “without it, nothing much

happens” (Cohen & Dornyei, 2002, p. 172). L2 teachers have always shown interestin theoretical and methodological innovations that can generate more motivation

within their students. Interestingly, L2 motivation research was originally initiatedby social psychologists interested in second languages and the social foundation of

intercultural communication (Dornyei, 2005). For instance, Gardner and Lambert(1972) viewed motivation to learn the language of another community as aprimary force that can enhance or hinder intercultural communication and affilia-

tion. This observation points to the reciprocal association and dynamicity thatexist between L2 motivation and ICC and the fact that further research is required

to probe this reciprocity from a social psychological perspective. The finding ofthis study can be seen in light of a social conception of the close link between L2

motivation and intercultural communication and alignment, what has also beentheoretically referred to as second language socialization (e.g. Watson-Gegeo &

Nielsen, 2003). In other words, the reciprocity witnessed in this study can be takenas evidence to argue that L2 motivation should not be treated simply as auni-dimensional (individualistic or psychological) trait but rather as a multi-

dimensional variable with its social, cultural, and psychological dimensions being


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

integrated. Thus, learners’ intercultural dispositions to foreign language learning

and aligning with otherness influence their L2 motivation, and motivational factors,in turn, guide the learning process and ensure achievement. In brief, it is advisable

for L2 research and pedagogy to approach the learning-teaching situation fromsuch a social constructivist perspective. It should be acknowledged, however, that

the insights gained cannot go too far beyond the social-cultural milieu and learnersof interest in this study (i.e. Iran) with its specific sociocultural and geo-political

considerations and attributes.The close association between ICC and L2 motivation is of critical importance

to L2 education. The implication is that teaching programs and activities bedesigned in a way that taps learners’ intercultural communicative potentialsand dispositions. L2 instruction should plan to raise learners’ awareness of

intercultural issues at work in classroom communicative tasks and activities andhave them reflect upon cultural variations (Liddicoat & Crozet, 2000). In L2

classrooms, this can be achieved by acquainting students with interestingvariations that exist across cultures by the use of playing documentaries and

reports, showing pictures and posters, and involving them in role-playing andcommunication with different partners and informants. Interestingly, Dornyei and

Csizer (1998) include “familiarize learners with the target language culture” asone of their proposed “ten commandments for motivating language learners” inL2 classrooms (p. 212). In a similar vein, Maleki and Zangani (2007) and Sadeghi

(2005) suggest that improving Iranian EFL learners’ intercultural communicativedispositions can bring them more motivation for L2 learning and success in L2

communication in the multicultural interconnected world. In sum, research onstudents in international schools and immersion programs in a second language

context shows that access to more opportunities for closer contact with othercultures results in a propensity to learn and achieve in the L2 (Sinicrope, Norris,

& Watanabe, 2007).Moreover, the results revealed that the participants’ gender had no significant

association with their ICC. This finding clearly needs further investigation by usingmore rigorous methodology and employing a larger sample from around the coun-try as conflicting results exist in the literature. For instance, some studies demon-

strated that females are more interculturally competent than males (e.g. Clark &Trafford, 1995; Sung & Padilla, 1998), whereas others found that males performed

significantly better on ICC instruments (or certain dimensions of ICC such asopenness and self-disclosure) (e.g. Chen, 1989; Kim & Goldstein, 2005; Pan, 2007).

On the other hand, there have been a group of studies that found no significantgender-oriented ICC variability in their results (e.g. Matveev, 2002; Nichols, 2011;

Patricia, 2005; Williams, 2005). Therefore, more research is necessary on this issuein a macro sociocultural milieu like Iran, where the social-cultural affordances formale and female participants are at times so variable that makes it legitimate to

expect gendered ICC differences.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Conclusion

In summary, this study sought to probe whether there was any relationship

between Iranian L2 learners’ ICC and their L2-learning motivation and whethergender differences had any significant association with the L2 learners’ ICC levels.

The results showed that there was a strong, positive correlation between the L2learners’ ICC and L2-learning motivation. This social psychological reciprocity wasconsidered to be highly important for the EFL-learning context of Iran in which

post-revolutionary sociocultural considerations and the geo-political boundarybetween the country and English-speaking countries, especially the United States,

have been largely value-laden and a matter of contention. This issue has impacteddifferent EFL learners’ ICC and L2 motivation in certain ways, which was partly

operationalized in the ICC descriptors. Therefore, care should be exercised inapplying the findings or instruments to other dissimilar L2-learning contexts. In

addition, L2 motivation was argued to be a multi-dimensional variable comprisingsocial, cultural, and psychological dimensions. This is a radical departure from the

research that has approached the notion as a merely individualistic or psychologi-cal trait. Furthermore, it was found that the L2 learners’ gender differences had noeffect on their ICC levels. However, generalizations were avoided on this domain

due to the profound controversy involved, and more research was deemednecessary.

As to the insights offered in this study, it was argued that the desire and abilityto reach out to the other in the multicultural modern world by learning his or her

national language and appropriating his or her culture is quintessential to the L2-learning process (Kramsch, 1998). ICC can be cognitively and affectively important

to L2 learning by itself and can in turn influence other qualities essential to theprocess, such as L2-learning motivation. Some second language acquisitionresearchers go even one step further and argue that L2 learners who neither try

nor long to learn the L2 culture risk becoming “a fluent fool” (Bennett et al.,2003, p. 237). This study also joins the literature that emphasizes the advantageous

effects of designing and using specific teaching tasks and activities in order toenhance L2 learners’ ICC (e.g. Atay et al., 2009; Liddicoat, 2004; Sebnem et al.,

2009; Sercu, 2002) and L2-learning motivation (e.g. Dornyei, 1998; Dornyei, 2001;Dornyei & Csizer, 1998; Dornyei & Csizer, 2002; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002;

Pintrich, 2003). It is thus suggested that an account of ICC development be incor-porated into L2 teachers’ classroom agendas at different educational levels. In brief,

teachers should utilize a vast array of specific tasks and instructions to motivate L2learners to enhance their ability and proclivity to appropriately and effectively dealwith the intercultural differences across different ethnolinguistic communities that

might impede the learning and communication processes in one way or another.Learners’ ICC can be improved by participating in university’s cultural programs

(Klak & Martin, 2003). Multicultural interactions in university can raise students’awareness to enhance their sense of ethno-relativism in international communica-

tions (Goby, 2007).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Nevertheless, a word of caution is in order. The current study was carried out in

an EFL intracultural context where L2 learners do not have constant exposure andcontact with English-speaking others and used introspective questionnaires as the

data collection procedure. Therefore, it could be a matter of contention whetherthe participants go on assessing their ICC and L2 motivation equally the same if

they are situated in an intercultural L2-learning setting. Future in-depth researchshould thus focus on intercultural contexts where language learners have to

practically approach a radically distinct social milieu and should adjust to a multi-tude of cultural differences. The use of methods triangulation—for instance, obser-

vation schedules and interviews—will provide a more complete picture of thesesocio-psychological constructs in such contexts. Furthermore, the issue of genderroles and differences has been probed from a fresh outlook in contemporary

research, where gender is not simply treated as a fixed (biological) binary trait ofindividuals (as it was treated in this study) but rather as a complex system of

social-cultural relations (Higgins, 2010). It is therefore advisable and interestingfor future similar studies to focus on gender as a social and discursive construction

in various contexts rather than a predetermined male or female identity.

References

Aleksandrowicz-Pedich, L., Draghicescu, J., Issaiass, D., & Sabec, N. (2003). The views of teach-ers of English and French on intercultural communicative competence in language teaching.In I. Lazar (Ed.), Incorporating intercultural communicative competence in language teachereducation (pp. 7–37). Strasbourg, FR: Council of Europe.

Atay, D., Kurt, G., Camlibel, Z., Ersin, P., & Kaslioglu, O. (2009). The role of interculturalcompetence in foreign language teaching. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of EducationLanguage Teaching, 10, 123–135.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (Ed.). (2000). Teaching to promote intellectual and personal maturity:Incorporating students’ worldviews and identities into the learning process. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Bennett, J., Bennett, M., & Allen, W. (2003). Developing intercultural competence in the lan-guage classroom. In D. Lange & R. Paige (Eds.), Culture as the core: Perspectives on culture insecond language learning (pp. 237–270). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship:Essays and reflections. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M., & Feng, A. (2005). Teaching and researching intercultural competence. In E. Hinkel(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 911–930). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Byram, M., & Zarate, G. (1997). Definitions, objectives and assessment of socioculturalcompetence. In Council of Europe, Sociocultural competence in language learning and teaching(pp. 7–43). Strasburg, FR: Council of Europe.

Chen, G. M. (1989). Relationships of the dimensions of intercultural communication competence.Communication Quarterly, 37, 118–133.

Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1996). Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis.Communication Yearbook, 19, 353–383.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Cheng, H. F., & Dornyei, Z. (2007). The use of motivational strategies in language instruction: Thecase of EFL teaching in Taiwan. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 153–174.

Clark, A., & Trafford, J. (1995). Boys into modern languages: An investigation of the discrepancyin attitudes and performance between boys and girls in modern languages. Gender andEducation, 7, 315–325.

Cohen, M., & Dornyei, Z. (2002). Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles and strate-gies. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 170–190). London:Arnold.

Csizer, K., & Dornyei, Z. (2005). The internal structure of language learning motivation: Resultsof structural equation modeling. Modern Language Journal, 89, 19–36.

Deardorff, D. K. (2004). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a studentoutcome of internationalization at institutions of higher education in the United States (Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation). North California State University, Raleigh, NC.

Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Policy paper on intercultural competence. Gutersloh, GM: BertelsmannStiftung.

Deardorff, D. K. (Ed.). (2009). The Sage handbook of intercultural competence. London: SagePublications.

Dornyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31,117–135.

Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. London: Longman Pearson Education.Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second lan-

guage acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Dornyei, Z., & Csizer, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners.

Language Teaching Research, 2, 203–229.Dornyei, Z., & Csizer, K. (2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation: Results

of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23, 421–462.Dornyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J.

Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630).Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

East, M. (2012). Addressing the intercultural via task-based language teaching: Possibility orproblem? Language and Intercultural Communication, 12, 56–73.

Ehrman, M. E. (2000). Affect, cognition, and learner self-regulation in second language learning.In O. Kagan & B. Rifkin (Eds.), The learning and teaching of Slavic languages and cultures:Toward the 21st century (pp. 109–133). Bloomington, IN: Slavica.

Eslami, Z. R., & Fatahi, A. (2008). Teachers’ sense of self-efficacy, English proficiency, andinstructional strategies: A study of nonnative EFL teachers in Iran. TESL-EJ, 11(4), 1–19.

Fantini, A. E. (2000). A central concern: Developing intercultural competence. Brattleboro, VT: SITPublications.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitude andmotivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C. (2004). The attitude motivation test battery: Technical report. London, Ontario,Canada: University of West Ontario, Department of Psychology.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266–272.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective variables in secondlanguage learning. Language Learning, 43, 157–194.

Goby, P. V. (2007). Business communication needs a multicultural perspective. Journal ofBusiness and Technical Communication, 21, 425–437.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Grein, M. (Ed.). (2007). Dialogue and culture. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins PublishingCompany.

Guilherme, M. (2000). Intercultural competence. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia oflanguage teaching and learning (pp. 297–300). London: Routledge.

Hammer, M. R., Bennet, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: Theintercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421–443.

Higgins, C. (2010). Gender identities in language education. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay(Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 370–397). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Huang, Y., Rayner, C., & Zhuang, L. (2003). Does intercultural competence matter in intercul-tural business relationship development? International Journal of Logistics, 6, 277–288.

Jack, G. (2009). A critical perspective on teaching intercultural competence in a managementdepartment. In A. Feng, M. Byram, & M. Fleming (Eds.), Becoming interculturally competentthrough education and training (pp. 95–114). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Kiet Ho, S. T. (2009). Addressing culture in EFL classrooms: The challenge of shifting from atraditional to an intercultural stance. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6, 63–76.

Kim, M. S., & Hubbard, A. S. E. (2007). Intercultural communication in the global village: Howto understand ‘The Other’. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36, 223–235.

Kim, R., & Goldstein, S. B. (2005). Intercultural attitudes predict favorable study abroad expec-tations of U.S. college students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9, 265–278.

Klak, T., & Martin, P. (2003). Do university-sponsored international cultural events help stu-dents to appreciate differences? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 445–465.

Kobayashi, Y. (2007). Japanese working women and English study abroad.World Englishes, 26, 62–71.Kouritzin, S. (2000). Immigrant mothers redefine access to ESL classes: Contradiction and

ambivalence. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21, 14–32.Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Liddicoat, A. J. (2004). Conceptualization of the cultural component of language teaching in

Australian language in education policy. Journal of Multilingual and MulticulturalDevelopment, 25, 297–317.

Liddicoat, A. J., & Crozet, C. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching language, teaching culture. Melbourne, AU:Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success.School Psychology Review, 31, 313–327.

Maleki, A., & Zangani, E. (2007). A survey on the relationship between English language profi-ciency and the academic achievement of Iranian EFL students. Asian EFL Journal, 9, 86–96.

Matveev, A. V. (2002). The perception of intercultural communication competence by Americanand Russian managers with experience on multicultural teams (Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion). Ohio University, Athens, OH.

Neuliep, J. W. (2012). The Relationship among Intercultural communication apprehension,ethnocentrism, uncertainty reduction, and communication satisfaction during initialintercultural interaction: An extension of anxiety and uncertainty management (AUM)theory. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41(1), 1–16.

Nichols, K. P. (2011). Fostering intercultural competence through study abroad: A gender-basedanalysis of individual and program factors influencing development (Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Ortiz, A. M., & Moore, K. M. (2000). Student outcomes associated with study abroad experiences:Implications for the development of intercultural competence. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, CA.

Pan, S. (2007). Intercultural communication apprehension, ethnocentrism and their relationshipwith gender: A cross-cultural comparison between the U.S. and China. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the National Communication Association Conference, New Orleans, LA.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Patricia, M. Y. (2005). Asian American adolescents and the stress of acculturation: Differences ingender and generational levels (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern ArizonaUniversity, Flagstaff, AZ.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation inlearning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.

Saft, S., & Ohara, Y. (2004). Promoting critical reflection about gender in EFL classes at a Japa-nese university. In B. Norton & A. A. Pavlenko (Eds.), Gender and English language learners(pp. 143–154). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Sadeghi, A. R. (2005). ESP in Iran: A transition from present state. In G. R. Kiany & M.Khayyamdar (Eds.), Proceedings of the first national ESP/EAP conference. (Vol. 2) (pp. 21–33).Tehran, IR: SAMT Publications.

Sebnem, P., Dicle, Y., & Guldem, A. (2009). Intercultural communication competence: A studyabout the intercultural sensitivity of university students based on their education and interna-tional experiences. Paper presented at the European and Mediterranean Conference onInformation Systems, Alicante, Spain.

Sercu, L. (2002). Implementing intercultural foreign language education: Belgian, Danish andBritish teachers’ professional self concepts and teaching practices. Evaluation and Research inEducation, 16, 150–165.

Sercu, L. (2004). Assessing intercultural competence: A framework for systematic test develop-ment in foreign language education and beyond. Intercultural Education, 15, 73–89.

Sinicrope, C., Norris, J., & Watanabe, Y. (2007). Understanding and assessing intercultural com-petence: A summary of theory, research, and practice (technical report for the foreign lan-guage program evaluation project). Second Language Studies, 26, 1–58.

Sung, H., & Padilla, A. (1998). Student motivation, parental attitudes, and involvement in thelearning of Asian languages in elementary and secondary schools. The Modern LanguageJournal, 82, 205–216.

Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Taylor, E. (1994). Intercultural competency: A transformative learning process. Adult Education

Quarterly, 44, 154–174.Teven, J. J., Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (2010). Updating relation-

ships between communication traits and communication competence. CommunicationResearch Reports, 27, 263–270.

Warriner, D. (2007). It’s just the nature of the beast: Reimagining the literacies of schooling inadults ESL education. Linguistics and Education, 18, 279–295.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Nielsen, S. (2003). Language socialization in SLA. In C. J. Doughty &M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 155–177). Oxford, UK:Blackwell Publishing.

Williams, T. R. (2005). Exploring the impact of study abroad on students’ intercultural commu-nication skills: Adaptability and sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9,356–371.

Wiseman, R. L. (2002). Intercultural communication competence. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody(Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2nd ed.) (pp. 207–224).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Zarrinabadi, N. (2012). Self-perceived communication competence in Iranian culture. Communi-cation Research Reports, 29, 292–298.

Zhao, C. M. (2002). Intercultural competence: A quantitative study of the significance of intercul-tural competence and the influence of college experiences on students’ intercultural competencedevelopment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and StateUniversity, Blacksburg, VA.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Appendix


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

32 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

relationship between intercultural communicative competence and l2-learning motivation of iranian...

Documents