Intercultural Education

ISSN: 1467-5986 (Print) 1469-8439 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceji20

Development of intercultural competence among

US American teachers: professional development
factors that enhance competence

Joan G. DeJaeghere & Yongling Zhang

To cite this article: Joan G. DeJaeghere & Yongling Zhang (2008) Development of intercultural
competence among US American teachers: professional development factors that enhance
competence, Intercultural Education, 19:3, 255-268, DOI: 10.1080/14675980802078624

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14675980802078624

Published online: 19 Jun 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1325

Citing articles: 34 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceji20
Intercultural Education
Vol. 19, No. 3, June 2008, 255–268

Development of intercultural competence among US American teachers:

professional development factors that enhance competence
Joan G. DeJaeghere* and Yongling Zhang

Department of Educational Policy and Administration, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

Intercultural
10.1080/14675980802078624
CEJI_A_308028.sgm
1467-5986
Original
Taylor
202008
19
deja0003@umn.edu
JoanDeJaeghere
00000April
and
& Article
Francis
(print)/1469-8439
Francis
Education
2008 (online)

The increasing diversity of the student age population in the USA calls for increased cultural
competence on behalf of educators to effectively teach students. This article reports on a study
of a suburban school district’s initiatives that utilized the Development Model of Intercultural
Sensitivity, the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) as a baseline measurement tool,
and subsequent professional development for teachers, to promote the development of
intercultural competence. ANOVA and regression analysis models were used to determine the
variables that affect teachers’ perceived intercultural competence after their participation in
professional development.
Keywords: multicultural education; intercultural competence; teachers’ professional
development; equity initiatives; educational planning

Introduction
The increasing diversity among the student population in US schools, in contrast to less diversity
among the teaching corps (Snyder and Hoffman 2002), and increasing attention to the achieve-
ment gap, suggests the need for teachers to develop intercultural competence to effectively
engage learners of various cultural backgrounds. A growing body of literature addresses the
development of culturally proficient schools (Lindsey, Roberts, and Campbell Jones 2005),
culturally competent educators (e.g. Diller and Moule 2005), and culturally responsive teaching
(Gay 2000). Multicultural educators have long challenged teacher education and in-service
programs to integrate race and culture in effective instructional strategies (Gay and Howard
2000; Irvine 2003). Irvine (2003), for instance, notes that:

If pre- and in-service teachers in urban, culturally diverse schools are to create and sustain effective
schools and classrooms, they should be provided with opportunities for professional growth that
focuses on learning and experimenting with effective culturally sensitive and contextualized instruc-
tional strategies. (73)

Some studies have shown that education programs affect teachers’ beliefs and attitudes about
culture and race (Lawrence and Tatum 1996; Carignan, Sanders, and Pourdavood 2005); fewer
studies have been conducted to assess the effects (or lack thereof) of educational programs on
teachers’ classroom behaviors, or pedagogy (Sleeter 1992; Lawrence and Tatum 1997; McNeal
2005). McAllister and Irvine (2000) point out that less attention has been given to the process by
which teachers develop cultural competence, and in particular, the various factors that may
contribute to effective in-service programs on teachers’ cultural competence. They summarize
the findings from research that has used three different process theories or models for developing

*Corresponding author. Email: Deja0003@umn.edu

ISSN 1467-5986 print/ISSN 1469-8439 online

© 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14675980802078624
http://www.informaworld.com
256 J.G. DeJaeghere and Y. Zhang

cultural competence. One of the models they review is M.J. Bennett’s (1986, 1993) Develop-
mental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). A few studies have used this model and the
related instrument, the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), to assess teachers’ level of
intercultural sensitivity (see, for example, Grossman and Yuen, 2006; Westrick and Yuen 2007).
At present, no studies have used this model to understand the characteristics of teacher education
and professional development and their relationship to intercultural sensitivity and competence.
The research study discussed in this article contributes to this growing literature on the processes
for achieving intercultural competence, and specifically addresses factors that contribute to
increased intercultural competence through an in-service professional development program
based on the DMIS.
This research study examined the extent to which a professional development program,
based on Bennett’s model, was related to teachers’ perceived intercultural competence in their
classrooms. This study is part of a larger action research project in a US midwestern urban
school district that has assessed teachers’ intercultural development levels using the (IDI)
(Hammer and Bennett 2001). The district has implemented ongoing professional development to
address the various skills, knowledge and attitudes at the different levels of intercultural
development, and has used monitoring and evaluation to determine changes made in teachers’
intercultural worldview and intercultural competence in the classroom. Specifically in this
article, the research addresses which factors in this professional development program are related
to and explain teachers’ perceived intercultural competence. The research questions examined in
this study include:

(1) Which factors in a teacher in-service professional development initiative, based on the
DMIS and IDI, are related to teachers’ perceived intercultural competence scores?
(2) To what extent do the professional development variables, such as having a group profile
or an individual profile, explain the variance measured on the scale of teachers’
perceived intercultural competence?

The DMIS (M.J. Bennett 1986, 1993) and the IDI (Hammer and Bennett 2001), a psychometri-
cally designed and tested assessment based on the DMIS, provide the theoretical foundation for
this study, and specifically for the teachers’ professional development program. The DMIS and
the IDI may be used to assess individuals and groups, and the results can be used to inform and
evaluate professional development based on an individual or groups’ intercultural development
scores (Hammer and Bennett 2001). Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman (2003) state that the IDI is
a measure of intercultural sensitivity which is ‘the ability to discriminate and experience relevant
cultural differences’, while intercultural competence is the ‘ability to think and act in intercul-
turally appropriate ways’ (2). They suggest that intercultural sensitivity is associated with greater
potential for exercising intercultural competence. In this study, intercultural competence is
regarded as the ability to think and act in interculturally appropriate ways as applied to the
school/classroom setting for teachers. We assess intercultural competence as not only the
potential for exercising, but their perceived sense of enacting skills, knowledge and attitudes in
relationship to various components of teaching and learning in the classroom. We describe the
scale designed to measure intercultural competence, as distinct from the IDI, in a later section.
In the following sections, we summarize how the DMIS and the IDI can be used to assess
individuals’ and groups’ intercultural sensitivity. The use of the IDI as a diagnostic tool includes
a group and individual profile, two variables we use to understand their effect on increasing
intercultural competence. The DMIS and the profile from the IDI further provide guidance for
developmentally appropriate training. Then, the types of training utilized in this school district
are briefly described. This study is not quasi-experimental and was not designed to use a specific
 Intercultural Education 257

professional development training program as an intervention. Rather, the district, with a site-
based management structure, utilizes diverse professional development opportunities based on
the needs of schools and teachers. Two different groupings of training were identified as
additional independent variables. Another variable often presumably related to intercultural
sensitivity and intercultural competence is experience in diverse settings or with diverse groups
of people. The research assessing this variable is inconclusive as experience is often measured
by time in another culture, and the length of time and contexts often vary greatly (see, for
example, Anderson et al. 2006; Deardorff 2006; Westrick and Yuen 2007). In the context of
educators and schools, we use two proxy variables to assess experiences and their relationship
to intercultural competence.
Finally, a scale devised to assess teachers’ perceived intercultural competence in schools/
classrooms is described. Intercultural competence is used in this study to refer to teachers’
assessment of their competence in relation to majority/minority group interactions, such as
between African-Americans and white European-Americans, and inter-national relations,
including, for example, interactions between newly arrived Somali immigrants and US white
American teachers. The teachers’ perceived intercultural competence scale is theoretically
derived from developmentally appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes based on the DMIS,
and on the theoretical literature which defines the dimensions of cultural competence in relation
to teaching and learning (Gay 2000; Cochran-Smith 1995, Diller and Moule 2005; Lindsey,
Roberts, and Campbell Jones 2005).

The DMIS and the IDI

M.J. Bennett (1986, 1993) proposed the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
(DMIS) to explain how people construe cultural difference, and the worldview one exhibits at
the different points along a continuum of development. The model has also been used to charac-
terize developmental learning processes needed to experience cultural differences in more
complex ways (M.J. Bennett 1986, 1993; Hammer and Bennett 2001; Paige 2004). The DMIS
constructs cultural differences as a continuum of six stages – three ethnocentric stages, and three
ethnorelative stages. The movement through ethnocentric stages includes: denial of difference,
defense toward difference, and minimization of difference; the increasing levels of intercultural
sensitivity in the ethnorelative stages are described as: acceptance of difference, adaptation to
difference, and integration of a bicultural or multicultural worldview (see M.J. Bennett 1986,
1993). The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI v2) (Hammer and Bennett 2001) was
developed to measure individuals’ constructions of cultural difference along this continuum.
This instrument has been tested on diverse (ethnic and national) populations; it has high reliabil-
ity and construct validity; it also has no significant correlation with a social-desirability scale
(Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman 2003; Paige et al. 2003). The IDI v2 assesses four scales that
correspond to the DMIS: DD is the denial and defense stages, R is reversal stage, M is minimi-
zation, and AA is acceptance and adaptation stages. Each of these scales also has subscales.
Scores on the IDI range from 55 to 145 and are an indicator of intercultural sensitivity, the
capacity to be interculturally competent.1 The focus of this study is not on the IDI scores per se,
but rather on how the IDI and DMIS are used to guide professional development about cultural
differences and cultural interactions.
One of the uses of the IDI is to assess the training needs of groups (Hammer and Bennett
2001). The results from the IDI provide individual and group profiles, with each of the scale
scores indicating the construction of difference in a scale. Sharing the individual and group
profiles with teachers provides an understanding of the process of intercultural development, and
gives insight into one’s own or one’s group’s current developmental strengths and challenges.
258 J.G. DeJaeghere and Y. Zhang

The in-service professional development program in the district usually involved an explanation
of the DMIS and the kinds of statements people say at various stages in the process of intercul-
tural development. Furthermore, this professional development included a description of the
attitudes, knowledge and skills present at each stage that facilitate interactions with people one
considers different from oneself, and that are needed to develop their worldview in subsequent
stages. Various forms of differences (e.g. ethnicity, national identity, language, gender, cultural
identity, religion) as well as issues present in educational settings related to difference (e.g.
isolation, power, identity) are discussed and illustrated.
After foundational concepts of intercultural development have been discussed, certified IDI
professionals presented the group profile. The group profile represents the aggregate scores of
all teachers in a school. The overall development score on the profile is used to provide a
diagnostic indicator of where the group is in regard to intercultural development. The scale
scores provide information about a group’s worldview within a given scale. For example, if a
group scores 4.9 (out of 5.0) on the DD scale, this indicates that the group, as an aggregate, has
a worldview that does not deny difference, nor do they regard their own ‘cultural identity’ as
superior to others’ identity.
The individual profile provides the same information for an individual’s scores rather than
aggregate scores. The individual profiles were discussed with individuals, at their request, during
a half-hour debriefing session. Before an individual profile is explained, the IDI trained facilita-
tor asks questions about the teacher’s experiences with difference, as well as any particular
issues or situations he/she has had in their classroom related to difference. This information helps
the facilitator to better understand the individual and how they responded to the IDI. The IDI
facilitator interprets the profile with the teacher, asking him/her to provide insight into how they
see themselves along this continuum of intercultural development. The session generally
concluded with suggestions for future professional development or strategies to address issues
the teacher may be confronting.
Both the individual and group profiles are tools that potentially facilitate greater awareness
and understanding of the process of intercultural development. However, no research to date has
studied how the profiles, as proxies for training and self-reflection on the intercultural process,
are related to future change in perceived intercultural competence. The individual profile, in
particular, allows for personal information and reflection on intercultural competence. Participa-
tion in a group or individual profile are two variables used in this study to assess the relationship
to perceived intercultural competence, at a later point in time. With regard to these variables, we
tested the following hypotheses:

(1) Participation in the individual and/or the group profile is positively related to perceived
intercultural competence scores.
(2) Participating in an individual profile has a greater impact than the group profile on
perceived intercultural competence scores.

Professional development
The IDI scores provide baseline data for identifying developmentally appropriate professional
development. In this school district, the group profiles suggest that teachers as an aggregated
group constructed difference from a minimization worldview, with overall scores ranging from
96 to 110 in the 9 different schools. A minimization worldview suggests that cultural differences
are subordinated to similarities, including biological and value similarities. Objective culture
differences, such as dress, may be ‘seen’, but the subjective culture differences, such as values,
are not often understood, and rather are assumed to be similar to one’s own values. While people
 Intercultural Education 259

can see and interact with difference while operating with a minimization worldview, they tend
to minimize the difference by acting from within their own cultural paradigm or worldview, thus
thinking that other people are ‘just like me’ (Bennett 1993). At this stage, awareness of one’s
own culture is crucial, as cultural self-awareness allows for greater understanding of one’s own
cultural assumptions, values, and practices, thus enabling us to see different cultural values and
practices. Hammer and Bennett (2001) and Paige (2005) suggest professional development that
addresses cultural self-awareness is important in minimization, as well as learning about non-
threatening subjective culture differences, and cultural patterns and categories.
Schools in this district, under site-based management, generally determine their own forms
of professional development based on their staff needs, the demographic background of students
and teachers, and their past professional development activities. These site-based professional
development initiatives were guided by the DMIS and the IDI scores, as a district-wide initiative,
which allowed for some continuity in the professional development approaches, while creating
flexibility based on developmental needs among groups of teachers in schools. The professional
development initiative in the first year focused on understanding the theory and practical impli-
cations of the DMIS, by certified IDI trainers, for all teachers in the schools. This professional
development generally preceded an explanation of the group profile. When subsequent profes-
sional development was conducted in schools, teacher leaders organizing the professional devel-
opment would refer to the DMIS model and the IDI group profile as a reminder of the rationale
for doing developmentally appropriate training. The professional development session about the
DMIS is another variable we assess in this study as it provides a theoretical understanding of
how intercultural development occurs, and it aims to connect this process to the practice of
teachers.
Additional professional development was also conducted in each of the schools. Professional
development took various forms, based on previous in-service training, and the specific needs
and interests of staff. Following the introduction of the DMIS/IDI initiative, professional devel-
opment focused on developing cultural self-awareness through various activities, such as a
values and identity activity (for example, see Lindsey, Roberts, and Campbell Jones 2005) or a
simulation used to reveal one’s cultural assumptions and behaviors (Thiagarajan and Thiagarajan
2006). Other teachers participated in Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity (SEED) courses,
an assessment of intercultural conflict styles (Hammer and Rogan 2002), or culture-specific
workshops about certain ethnic/religious groups. Participation in this broad range of professional
development workshops is another independent variable used in this study. We assumed that
these kinds of professional development are different from the workshop about the DMIS, as
these professional development workshops were selected by schools or individual teachers for
having relevance to culture-general or culture-specific training needs. With regard to these
professional development variables, we tested the following hypotheses:

(3) Participation in DMIS training is positively related to future perceived intercultural

competence scores.
(4) Participation in culture related professional development is positively related to future
perceived intercultural competence scores.

Experience with cultural difference

One factor often tested in the literature for its relationship to intercultural competence is
experience with people who are culturally different from oneself, or experience in a different
cultural environment. Studies using the IDI have often defined experience as the length of
time a participant spends in another country (i.e. studying abroad). Some studies have found
260 J.G. DeJaeghere and Y. Zhang

that the length of time in another country, as a proxy for experience, is related to greater inter-
cultural sensitivity scores as measured by the IDI, though the evidence is not conclusive
(Anderson et al. 2006; Paige, Cohen, and Shively 2004). Westrick and Yuen (2007), in their
study of teachers in different types of schools in Hong Kong, found that experience, measured
in years living in another culture, was the strongest predictor variable of teachers’ intercultural
development scores. Other studies with teachers teaching in culturally diverse schools have
measured experience and its relationship to models of ethnic development. For example, Cox
(1982) and Smith (1983) both assess the relationship of experience with Bank’s (1994)
typology of ethnic identity; however, experience is defined differently in these two studies.
The evidence is not conclusive as to the role of experience in relation to intercultural compe-
tence, nor is there agreement on the variables used to accurately measure it. An important
characteristic of experience may be that reflection on and meaningful interaction with differ-
ence is necessary to developing intercultural competence. Simply being in the ‘proximity of
difference’, as Bennett (1993) describes, may not account for experience that affects one’s
intercultural development. In this study, two variables are used as a proxy for experience:
number of years of experience as a teacher, and number of years of experience in the school
district. We assume a difference between the two types of experience because years of
teaching may not have occurred in settings that are culturally diverse, while the district has
had considerable change in the demographics of its student/family population over the last
decade. The complexity of measuring experience in years taught is that teachers on either end
of the continuum of experience could have had meaningful interactions with difference given
the recent demographic changes. In fact, Cox’s (1982) study found that the youngest and the
oldest teachers had the highest correlation between their multicultural experiences and their
ethnic awareness. Therefore, it is difficult to hypothesize whether fewer or more years of
experience are related to greater perceived intercultural competence. With regard to these
independent variables, we hypothesized that:

(5) The years of experience teaching in schools would not have a strong relationship with
perceived intercultural competence scores.
(6) The years of experience working in the district would be positively related to perceived
intercultural competence scores.

Measuring perceived intercultural competence

The literature and research on culturally competent educators and on culturally responsive
teaching in schools suggests several dimensions that are necessary for intercultural compe-
tence.2 These dimensions include: cultural self-awareness or consciousness-raising (Cross et
al. 1989; Bennett 1993; Gay 2000, 71); awareness and acceptance of difference, and others’
cultural worldviews (Cross et al. 1989; Bennett 1993; Hammer and Bennett 2001); awareness
of the social-construction of race, and prejudice and discrimination in historical and contem-
porary societal and school contexts (Sleeter 1992); knowledge of cultural patterns and culture
specific knowledge (Bennett 1993; Gay 2000); knowledge of and skill in using different
communication and learning styles (J.M. Bennett 1986; Gay 2000); knowledge and skill in
using diverse classroom management strategies; ability to adapt the curriculum content to
reflect cultural diversity of students; and skills to implement various pedagogies, including
discourse, participation and assessment, that are culturally relevant to one’s students (Gay
2000).
While each of these dimensions has specific attitudes, knowledge areas, and skills within
them, the purpose of developing a scale of intercultural competence for this study is to generally
 Intercultural Education 261

assess in which dimensions teachers perceived they had made changes since taking the IDI and
participating in professional development. This assessment allows the researchers and the
schools to determine in which areas the training may have contributed to change, and in which
areas they needed to further focus their work.
Based on these various dimensions found in the research and literature, we designed an 11-
item scale that assessed teachers’ perceived intercultural competence in the classroom. These
items measure the following dimensions: cultural self-awareness; awareness of cultural
differences; and awareness of how cultural differences affect classroom teaching, curriculum
content, pedagogy, teaching styles, classroom management and communication styles (see
Table 1). The composite score of these items reflects a perceived cultural competence scale, and
is the dependent variable in this study.
The dimension of awareness of race, prejudice and discrimination was not assessed in this
scale. At the time of the assessment, all schools were assessed as operating primarily from a
minimization worldview, according to their IDI group profiles. In this stage, the types of learn-
ing that are emphasized are cultural self-awareness and awareness of cultural differences, as
well as cultural patterns. According to the developmental nature of the DMIS, learning should
be directed at the developmental skills, attitudes and knowledge of learners, and it stresses that
if they are challenged with learning beyond this developmental stage, they may reject it or
revert to earlier stages of development (Bennett 1993). In the first year, training on race and
discrimination may have happened, but it was not the primary focus during minimization
because of the high risk nature these topics present to teachers, who are predominantly white,
middle class (J.M. Bennett 1986). In the years following this assessment, the school district
has developed an in-service professional development program around race, whiteness, and
white privilege. A future study should include this dimension on a scale of intercultural
competence.

Table 1. Intercultural competence scale items.

Variable
Own culture awareness
Different culture awareness
IDI impact on teaching
Curriculum plan change
Teaching change
Effective teaching
Materials
Promote understanding
Teaching techniques
Classroom management
Parents
Description
I have become more aware of my own culture.
I have become more aware of culture differences in my classroom/school.
I have thought about how my own intercultural development impacts my
classroom teaching/learning.
I have made changes to my curriculum planning (objectives, lessons,
activities, assessment) to address cultural differences in my classroom.
I have made changes in how I teach in the classroom
I feel more effective in teaching students who are from a different cultural
background than me.
In my classroom, I use materials (texts, artifacts, etc.) that have content
related to the cultural backgrounds of students.
In my classroom, I promote intercultural understanding among students.
In my classroom, I use teaching techniques that are adapted to the learning
styles of my students from cultural backgrounds different than my own.
I utilize classroom management techniques (e.g. collaborative learning,
discipline, homework) that are supportive of the different cultural
backgrounds of my students.
When interacting with parents, I use communication styles that are
appropriate to their cultural perspective.
262 J.G. DeJaeghere and Y. Zhang

Methods
Participants
The school district undertaking this professional development initiative and action research
study is comprised of nine schools – seven elementary or elementary/middle, one middle school
and one high school. At the time of the survey, 453 teachers and teaching aides worked in the
schools. Three hundred and fifty-two teachers and teachers’ aides responded to the survey
assessing intercultural competence, a response rate of 78%. Eighty-eight percent of those
responding (N=303) were teachers, the remaining 12 percent (N=42) were teachers’ aides. Of
these responses, 284 teachers and teachers’ aides had taken the Intercultural Development Inven-
tory (IDI). Because we were assessing perceived change in how they enacted intercultural
competence in their classroom after having taken the IDI, only these 284 participants’ responses
were used in this analysis. Table 2 provides the frequency of the number of years the participants
had worked in the school district and the number of years they had worked as a certified teacher.
Ten years of experience was the point used to create a dichotomous variable, as this allows for
a near even distribution of respondents on this variable. Years of teaching, on the other hand, is
not evenly distributed and has more missing data, probably because teacher aides did not respond
consistently to the question.

Administration of survey
Teachers in most schools took the IDI in early 2004, at which time professional development
initiatives related to the DMIS began, and other ongoing initiatives related to diversity continued
(i.e. SEED training). This survey scale was administered online in March 2005. It was comprised
of 23 items, including demographic characteristics of teachers, their participation in post-IDI
professional development, and the 11-item cultural competence scale. At different times during
the preceding 1.5 years, schools received workshops on the DMIS and their group profile, and
nearly half of the teachers responding to the survey had an individual profile during that time.

Intercultural competence scale

The 11-item scale, as shown in Table 1, includes two types of questions: 1) those that assess
teachers’ self-report of change in their cultural awareness and culture general appropriate class-
room practices after taking the IDI; and 2) those that assess their self-report of specific culturally
appropriate teaching practices.

Table 2. Frequency of years in the district and years being a certified teacher.
Variable Years Frequency Percentage
Years in the district 1–3 85 24%
4–9 110 31%
10–15 74 21%
16 or more 65 19%
Missing 18 5%
Years as a certified teacher 1–3 35 10%
4–9 83 24%
10–15 50 14%
16 or more 107 30%
Missing 77 22%
 Intercultural Education 263

Table 3. One-way ANOVA of participation in interpretation sessions and intercultural competence score.
Group Number Mean (SD)
Participated in neither 46 23.6 (5.3)
Participated in group profile only 71 26.1 (5.7)
Participated in individual profile only 15 25.3 (6.6)
Participated in both 98 28.8 (6.0)
F (3,226) = 9.227 (p-value =.000)

Each of the items uses a four-point Likert-type scale, with the response options for the first
6 items being: 1 = not at all, 2 = small extent, 3 = somewhat, and 4 = very much. The response
options for the other 5 items are: 1 = seldom, 2 = occasionally, 3 = quite often, and 4 =
frequently, at a daily basis. A test of reliability of responses on all 11 items was high (alpha =
.86), indicating that the items reliably assess the underlying construct: intercultural compe-
tence. A composite score was created by adding response scores for each item, thus creating a
range from 11 to 44. Two hundred and thirty-one participants responded to all items on the
scale.3 The intercultural competence composite score has a mean of 26.78 and a standard
deviation of 5.99.
Preliminary analysis of the data (using ANOVA) found statistically significant (.000 level)
differences in responses to perceived intercultural competence for groups that: (1) did not take
either the group or individual profile; (2) took the group profile; (3) took the individual profile;
and (4) took both the group and individual profiles. Therefore, the subsequent research question
the researchers aimed to understand was how much these factors, and others, contributed to the
variance in the scores of intercultural competence. The results of this ANOVA are shown in
Table 3.

Analysis
The analysis includes testing for correlations between predictor variables and the dependent vari-
able, cultural competence; and fitting a multiple regression model of the predictor variables to
determine the extent of the variance explained in the dependent variable. An ‘enter’ regression
model (as opposed to a step-wise) is used to test the whole model because it is assumed that
professional development initiatives would likely utilize all the predictor variables together if
they are found to be significant in explaining the variance in intercultural competence. The
predictor variables are all dummy coded as 0 = No, 1 = Yes, except for the years of work expe-
rience, where 0 = more than 9 years, and 1 = less than 9 years. The predictor variables included:
participation in a group profile, participation in an individual profile, participation in DMIS
training, participation in other professional development, years of teaching, and years of working
in the district.
In running the multiple regression model, additional missing data in the independent vari-
ables would have decreased the sample size to 166, which is not sufficient for running a five-
or six-predictor regression model. A modified zero-order regression model (Green 2000) was
fit to maintain adequate sample size.4 This model was selected over other options, such as
multi-level modeling, because the number of level 2 groups, schools in this case, was too small
(e.g. Maas and Hox 2004). Assessing the effect of schools on intercultural competence, given
differences in structure, personnel, and practices, is not possible in this study due to sample
size of both participants and schools, but it is suggested as an important factor to include in a
future study.
264 J.G. DeJaeghere and Y. Zhang

Findings
The findings of the multiple regression model are presented in Table 4. Participation in a group
profile is positively and significantly correlated to cultural competence (R = .278, p<.001). Its
correlation is also slightly higher than that of the variable, participation in an individual profile
(R = .227, p<.001). Therefore, the data support our first hypothesis, that individual and group
profiles are correlated with intercultural competence. In addition, both professional development
about the DMIS model and other professional development are positively correlated to intercultural
competence (R = .188, p<.01, and R = .292, p<.001, respectively). Again, this analysis supports
our hypothesis. Furthermore, other professional development has the highest correlation of all
the factors, and supports our hypothesis that this type of professional development is most correlated
with intercultural competence. Finally, working as a certified teacher (less or more than 10 years)
and working in the district are not significantly correlated with intercultural competence. A possible
reason for this small negative correlation could be traced to the demographic change in the district.
Since the district’s student population was quite homogeneous until the 1990s, it could be that
those teachers who have worked more than 10 years in that district are familiar with a homogeneous
student population and thus find it harder to change, whereas those who worked less than 10 years
may have encountered cultural differences in students from early on in their career in this district
and they have adapted more in terms of intercultural awareness and competence.
Given the significant correlation of four of the predictor variables, these four factors are used
to fit a model of multiple regression. A five-factor multiple regression model explains 22% of
the variance in intercultural competence scores. The factor ‘participation in other professional
development activities’ is significant at .001 level; with a Beta coefficient of 2.831. Participating
in individual and group profiles also has an effect on intercultural competence scores (B = 2.375,
p<.001 and B = 2.32, respectively; p<.01); this indicates that teachers who attended a group
profile interpretation score 2.32 points higher on the perceived intercultural competence scale
than those who didn’t attend this professional development. Participating in DMIS professional
development, though having seemingly less effect on cultural competence scores (B = 1.575), is
nonetheless still significant (p<.05).
To sum up, teachers attending group profile and individual profile interpretation of the IDI
have a higher score of intercultural competence score than those who do not attend. In particular,
an individual profile interpretation is associated with slightly higher increase in the perceived inter-
cultural competence score than group profile interpretation. Participation in professional devel-
opment activities also contributed to an increase in the perceived intercultural competence score.

Discussion
This analysis reveals that these professional development variables are related to higher scores
on the perceived intercultural competence scale. These findings suggest that schools implementing
Table 4. Multiple regression analysis predicting intercultural competence.
B SE T-ratio p-value
Group profile 2.320 .869 2.671 .007**
Individual profile 2.375 .759 3.128 .001***
DMIS development 1.575 .764 2.063 .030*
Other professional activities 2.831 .746 3.759 .000***
Years of work in the district 1.178 .753 1.565 .119
Total R2 =.22; Adjusted R2 = .188 F = 6.906***
Note: * = significant at .05 level; ** = significant at .01 level; *** = significant at .001 level.
 Intercultural Education 265

professional development initiatives aimed at improving the intercultural competence of educators

ought to consider the importance of both group and individual IDI profiles, and especially the
latter. It has been one of the researcher’s experience in working with other districts that less
attention has been given to the individual profile, in part because this adds costs to a professional
development program, and in part because administrators are concerned that teachers find this
too risky. At the same time, anecdotal evidence from people participating in the individual profile,
as well as evidence from qualitative questions on the survey, suggests that they find the IDI
individual profile very helpful.
Another implication of these findings is that professional development directly related to the
DMIS, while less strong in explaining higher intercultural competence scores than other profes-
sional development opportunities, does have an important and significant role in teachers’
perceived intercultural competence scores. One reason may be that it helps teachers to under-
stand that intercultural competence is developmental, which means that participating in a few
workshops is not sufficient to achieve competence. At the same time, the DMIS helps educators
understand which types of training on knowledge, skills and attitudes would be useful at differ-
ent stages along the continuum. In essence, professional development on the DMIS is supportive
of other professional development.
Finally, professional development that educators or schools choose that is specifically
related to their needs or school environment has the greatest impact on perceived intercultural
competence.

Implications for future research

Beyond assessing perceived intercultural competence, a next step would be to observe practices
and behaviors, as McAllister and Irvine (2000) note that few studies assess direct outcomes,
rather than latent variables. Observations of classroom teaching have been conducted as another
component of this larger study.
Another area for further research is to test the predictive validity of the IDI with intercultural
competence. This research study found that those who have been involved in IDI professional
development have a higher perceived intercultural competence score; however, future research
could correlate specific IDI scores with this intercultural competence scale.5 For example, do
those whose score is above 120 (AA) report greater perceived intercultural competence?
The school district plans to use this scale again to assess changes in perceived intercultural
competence four years after professional development initiatives began. The data from a second
administration of the survey could allow an analysis of changes over time in the various compo-
nents of perceived intercultural competence. For example, one hypothesis could be that greater
change has occurred for those items in which a smaller degree of change was reported in this
study, such as changes in curriculum.
One limitation of this study is that the variable ‘other professional development’ is a broad
variable covering many different types of professional development. More refined sub-catego-
ries of this variable would allow for testing which professional development may have a greater
influence on perceived intercultural competence. Considerable variation in the types of
professional development is desirable, given that different professional development is needed
by individuals at different stages along the DMIS continuum; nonetheless, some consistent
types, such as SEED or White Privilege training, could be analyzed.
Another limitation of this study was the response options for years of experience. Teachers’
years of experiences were not measured as a continuous variable, and therefore, it is not possible
to correlate the exact number of years of experiences with teachers’ perceived intercultural compe-
tence. One explanation for the low correlation of our dummy-coded variable for years with
266 J.G. DeJaeghere and Y. Zhang

perceived intercultural competence is that the categories of 0–9 years and 10 or more years may
combine both people with years of experience who have considerable exposure to difference with
those who do not. Since the district’s student population was quite homogeneous until the 1990s,
a plausible explanation could be that those teachers who have worked more than 10 years in that
district are familiar with a homogeneous student population and thus find it harder to change,
whereas those who worked less than 10 years may have encountered cultural differences in students
from early on in their career in this district and they have adapted more in terms of intercultural
awareness and competence. Also, this categorization may include both people actively making
a change in their perceived intercultural competence and those who do not pursue such an effort.

Conclusions
This study makes a theoretical contribution to the research on intercultural development and
competence among teachers. The results also suggest practical applications. This research exam-
ines the use of the DMIS model in K–12 school settings and tests in-service professional devel-
opment factors that affect perceived intercultural competence, an important competency for
educators working in diverse school settings. The regression model suggests that participation in
post-IDI interpretations, especially an individual profile, is positively related to teachers’
perceived intercultural competence scores. In addition, professional development on cultural
issues is also demonstrated to have positive correlations with perceived intercultural compe-
tence. Future research should assess in greater depth the specific kinds of cultural professional
development activities that contribute to the development of intercultural competence. This
research suggests that participation in ongoing and meaningful professional development can
have an impact on teachers’ perceived intercultural competence.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jan Westrick and David Grossman, and two anonymous reviewers, for
their critical feedback on this article. They also wish to thank the school district administration and educa-
tors for undertaking this professional development initiative and for providing data for this study.

Notes
1. For more in-depth explanation of the IDI, its scales and subscales, and scoring rubric, see Hammer and
Bennett 2001 and Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman 2003.
2. Studies that assess intercultural competence often include the concepts of effectiveness, adjustment and
adaptation to cultural differences and settings (Dinges and Baldwin 1996). In many cases, intercultural
competence is assessed as an individual’s perception of their competence, using latent variables to
approximate individuals’ attitudes and behaviors, rather than actual observation of behavior or an
assessment of competence based on the receivers’ experience of interactions with an individual.
3. There was no evidence that data for the 11 items were missing at random; therefore, a listwise deletion
method for missing data was used to compute the intercultural competence summary score (Peng et al.
2007).
4. A modified zero-order regression is used to fill missing observations with zeros and add a dummy vari-
able that takes the value 1 for missing observations and zero for complete ones. In this case, the inde-
pendent variables are all dummy coded as 0 and 1. Therefore, the missing data in each of the five
predictors have been recoded to −1 to fill the empty cell. It should be noted that −1 does not have any
practical/interpretational meaning. Five missing dummy variables were created, in which 0 represents
the non-missing data in the original independent variables and 1 represents the missing data in the
original independent variables. A multiple regression model was then fit using the 10 predictors, five
of which were dummy variables for missing responses. Only the coefficients of the original 5 predic-
tors are reported, as the 5 dummy variables do not have practical meaning.
5. Due to teachers’ anonymity in taking the IDI and this survey, we were not able to correlate these scores.
 Intercultural Education 267

Notes on contributors
Joan DeJaeghere is an assistant professor in the Comparative and International Development Education
Program in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota. Her schol-
arly interests include analyzing policies and practices to address ethnic and gender inequalities in schools.

Yongling Zhang is a PhD candidate in Educational Policy and Administration Department at the University
of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Her research interests include: international and intercultural education, citizen-
ship education, and rural teacher development in China. Currently she is working on her dissertation about
citizenship education in Mainland China and Hong Kong.

References
Anderson, P.H., L. Lawton, R.J. Rexeisen, and A.C. Hubbard. 2006. Short-term study-abroad and inter-
cultural sensitivity: A pilot study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30, no. 4: 457–69.
Banks, J. 1994. Multiethnic education: Theory and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Banks, J.A., and C.A.M. Banks. 2004a. Handbook of research on multicultural education, 2nd ed. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
———, eds. 2004b. Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives, 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bennett, J.M. 1986. Modes of cross-cultural training: Conceptualizing cross-cultural training as education.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10, no. 2: 117–34.
Bennett, M.J. 1986. A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Jour-
nal of Intercultural Relations 10, no. 2: 179–95.
———. 1993. Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In Education
for the intercultural experience, ed. R.M. Paige, 21–71. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Carignan, N., M. Sanders, and R.G. Pourdavood. 2005. Racism and ethnocentrism: Social representations
of preservice teachers in the context of multi and intercultural education. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods 4, no. 3: 1–17.
Cochran-Smith, M. 1995. Color blindness and basket making are not the answers: Confronting the dilem-
mas of race, culture and diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal 32,
no. 3: 493–522.
———. 2004. Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Cox, B. 1982. A research study focusing on Bank’s stages of ethnicity typology as related to elementary
teachers’ multicultural experiences. Doctoral diss., Univ. of Houston, TX.
Cross, T.L., B.J. Bazron, K.W. Dennis, and M.R. Issacs. 1989. Toward a culturally competent system of
care. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Development Center.
Deardorff, D.K. 2006. Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of
internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education 10, no. 3: 241–66.
Diller, J., and J. Moule. 2005. Cultural competence: A primer for educators. Toronto: Thomson Wadsworth.
Dinges, N., and K. Baldwin. 1996. Intercultural competence: A research perspective. In Handbook of
intercultural training, 2nd ed., ed. D. Landis and R.S. Bhagat. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gay, G. 2000. Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Gay, G., and T.C. Howard. 2000. Multicultural teacher education for the 21st century. Teacher Educator
36, no. 1: 1–16.
Green, W.H. 2000. Econometric analysis, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Grossman, D.L., and C.Y. Yuen. 2006. Beyond the rhetoric: A study of the intercultural sensitivity of
Hong Kong secondary school teachers. Pacific-Asian Education 18, no. 1: 70–87.
Hammer, M.J., and R.G. Rogan. 2002. Latino and Indochinese interpretive frames in negotiating conflict
with law enforcement: A focus group analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26, no.
5: 551–75.
Hammer, M.R., and M.J. Bennett. 2001. Intercultural development inventory. Portland, OR: Intercultural
Communication Institute.
Hammer, M.R., M.J. Bennett, and R. Wiseman. 2003. Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercul-
tural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27, no. 4: 421–43.
Irvine, J.J. 2003. Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York: Teachers
College Press.
268 J.G. DeJaeghere and Y. Zhang

Lawrence, S.M., and B.D. Tatum. 1996. Teachers in transition: The impact of anti-racist professional
development on classroom practice. Teachers College Cross-cultural Roundtable on Psychology and
Education.
———. 1997. White educators as allies: Moving from awareness to action. In Off white: Critical perspec-
tives on race, ed. M. Fine, L. Weiss, L. Powell, and M. Wong, 333–42. New York: Routledge.
Lindsey, R.B., L.M. Roberts, and F. Campbell Jones. 2005. The culturally proficient school. Thousand
Oaks, CA, Corwin Press.
Maas, C.J.M., and J.J. Hox. 2004. Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis. Statistica Neer-
landica 58, no. 2: 127–37.
McAllister, G., and J.J. Irvine. 2000. Cross cultural competency and multicultural teacher education.
Review of Educational Research 70, no. 1: 3–24.
McNeal, K. 2005. The influence of a multicultural teacher education program on teachers’ multicultural
practices. Intercultural Education 16, no. 4: 405–19.
Paige, R.M. 2004. Promoting intercultural development: Worldview relevant teaching and learning.
Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota.
Paige, R.M., A.D. Cohen, and R.L. Shively. 2004. Assessing the impact of a strategies-based curriculum
on language and culture learning abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad
10: 253–76.
Paige, R. M., M. Jacobs-Cassuto, Y.A. Yesrshova, and J. DeJaeghere. 2003. Assessing intercultural sensi-
tivity: An empirical analysis of the Hammer and Bennett Intercultural Development Inventory. Inter-
national Journal of Intercultural Relations 27, no. 4: 467–86.
Peng, C.Y.-J., M. Harwell, S.-M. Liou, and L.H. Ehman. 2007. Advances in missing data methods and
implications for educational research. In Real data analysis, ed. S.S. Sawilowsky. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Sleeter, C.E. 1992. Keepers of the American dream: A study of staff development and multicultural
education. London and Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Smith, A. 1983. The relationship of teachers preparedness in multicultural education to levels of ethnic
awareness and multicultural exposure among elementary school certificated personnel. Doctoral diss.,
Univ. of Washington, Pullman.
Snyder, T., and C. Hoffman. 2002. Digest of education statistics 2001. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics.
Thiagarajan, S., and R. Thiagarajan. 2006. Barnga: A simulation game on cultural clashes. Boston:
Intercultural Press.
Westrick, J., and C. Yuen. 2007. The intercultural sensitivity of secondary teachers in Hong Kong: A
comparative study with implications for teacher development. Intercultural Education 18, no. 2:
129–45.