STUDENTS’ IDENTITY IN MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION:

REFLECTION ON COMMUNICATION PRACTICE

Submitted as Partial Fulfillment for Passing the Subject of Research Project

Assessed by

Prof. Dr. Didi Suherdi, M.A

Yanty Wirza, M. Pd., M.A., Ph.D

by

Dhia Hasanah
1907001

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

2020
 Students’ Identity in Multicultural Education: Reflection on
Communication Practice

Abstract

This paper is started by stating the rationale between student’s identity and
students’ communication practice in university level, and then the identity
constructs multicultural education in learning process. To make this paper
more specific, the author explains every point of this issue about the
concept of student identity, the concept of student identity and community
of practice, the concept of classroom interaction, the concept of
multicultural education and the concept of intercultural communication.
Since this paper focuses on student’s identity which is brought by
immigrant student, the process of adjusting and negotiating become
supporting evidence about how immigrant student represent their identities
in diverse groups. The reason of the chosen topic is because the process of
globalization gives consequence in increasing immigrant students in the
classroom that is commonly happened in educational field. This paper also
provides several previous studies to support the ideas. At last, the
implications and suggestions to the further researcher are discussed.

Keywords: classroom interaction, learners’ identities, multicultural education

Introduction: Rationale of Students’ Identity in Multicultural Education: Reflection on
Communication Practice

Facing a new globalization makes every individual increases their quality life through
having a good education. Education is important because it affects individuals' returns on
earnings from their education. The extent to which individual’s education gets to achieve
higher levels in their lives has a significant effect on the migration decision. The process of
globalization gives consequence in increasing immigrant students in the classroom. It is
becoming a phenomenon that has recently increased in education field. Students move from
one place to another place to get a proper education that will help students to be success in
the future. Although several studies have shown that in many cases, many of these immigrant
students do not achieve academic success (Orfield, 2001; Gibson and Hidalgo, 2009; Medina
Audelo, 2017), the presence of immigrant students in schools help native students learn many
cultures in classroom interaction.
Since immigrant students bring their home cultures as their identity, students’
identities give impact on language learning and classroom interaction. One of the positive
impact of cultural diversity in classroom is not only limited to the students, but a culturally
diverse faculty can also increase the performance of immigrant students because students can
promote or show their identity with positive role models within their own cultures (Quiocho
and Ríos, 2000; Wieher, 2000; Clough, 2017). It is line with Flecha and Soler (2013) the
immigrants students has been considered to add value and present an opportunity to have
more diverse interactions and, therefore, more intrapersonal development. Through the
explanation above, it shows that language identity will influence someone’s language when
they start learning.
There has, however, been significant literature which has reviewed research into
student’s identity and language learning in classroom interaction. First study has been
recently conducted in 2018 by Garcia-Pastor. Having 51 college students enrolled in a foreign
language teaching course within the degree of Teacher of English in Primary Education at a
Spanish university during the study. This article aimed to strengthen about learners’
connections of their learning experiences across time and settings, and their impact on the
various learner identities that form their local language. It also intended to how learners
construct powerful learner identities in and through their digital text as a tool for having
interaction with other students. The result indicated EFL learners at Spanish university
couldestablish connections between their learning experiences across time (their family and
daily life spaces, school, and the foreign language community) and settings in digital texts of
identity produced in this language that shaped their identities of students and language
learners in order to build powerful learner identities. Students mainly understood such
learning in terms of reception, oral production and interaction, and mediation.
The second study comes from Li (2015). In this article, the author use qualitative
study engaged five international graduate students from four different countries (the U.S.,
Colombia, Cape Verde Island, and Spain) who were studying at a Chinese university in
Shanghai. The author investigated how students’ personal and academic lives during in China
including their interaction with local people and integration into the local context. Their sense
of belonging was also explored. Data were gained through a questionnaire, email
correspondence, face-to-face interviews, and follow-up emails during the period of 1 year in
China. In light of the data, the result shows factors such as language proficiency, engagement
with culture, and the power of native language in relation to sense of belonging. Specifically,
the author conceptualizes a mediated space among students during learning process
incorporating students’ multiple cultures, and then created through negotiation with
themselves and the host culture through the implications international education in China.
Another study from the previous year Miller (2010) which analyzed the relation
among second-language use, membership, and social contexts through the phenomenon of
recently arrived immigrant students in Australian high schools. She argues that a key notion
linking language use and identity is that of self-representation. The ways how students
represent themselves as immigrant students in social groups and in schools, are critically
related to the types of social interactions they participate in and to their ongoing English as
language learning and integration into mainstream school and other social contexts. In this
study, the author also intends that for schools to attend more effectively to the identities and
self-representations of students from non-English-speaking backgrounds, they must first
recognize the dynamic interrelations among institutional contexts, language resources, and
social identities in classroom.
Many studies that were carried out under the topic of student’s identity showed that
different perceptions were gained. Several studies regarding to student’s identity to digital
text as an interaction tool, student’s identity to interaction with local people into the local
context, and language use and identity is that of self-representation through social interaction
have been conducted. The several studies showed positive responses and others gave slightly
disrespect views towards them. However, talking about student’s identity must have abroad
topic in teaching learning context especially in classroom activity. In the classroom context,
the language learning, identity and interaction get more focus as they are directly connected
to the variables that exist in the language pedagogy. This needs further investigation because
it will be very helpful for the every stakeholder to find out how identity can represent
students in learning a language in classroom interaction.

Student Identity
In the current age of massification of education, we can see students at university
level who come from many areas bring their home cultures as self identity. In the first year of
university, students have not adjusted themselves in new environment. According to Marcia
(1980) identity is the more aware individuals appear to be of their own uniqueness and
similarity to others and of their own strengths and weaknesses in making their way in the
world. Moreover, Identity theory (Burke and Reitzes 1981; Stryker 1980; Stryker and Serpe
1982) is an extension of symbolic interaction, in that it posits a reciprocal relationship
between self and social structures. It means that identity can help and hinder students in
building a good relationship among other people in their surroundings depending on how
students bring their identity.
From another perspective in different year,(Burke 1991; Burke and Cast 1997)make a
new perspective about identity that an identity is a relatively stable construct, and changes in
behaviour across situations are the result of the individual attempting to alter the situation to
achieve a match between perceptional inputs and identity standard, rather than indicators of
self-change. Changing individual’s socialidentity can be occurred in different social contexts
especially on university such as in how student organizations are created and adjusted and
which students are drawn by students, or in the social identities among those in leadership
positions and not, as well as in issues of institutional fit within access and retention.
One of the components of identity that appears quickly on most university is the
process of students learning how to balance their identities and needs. A common problem
for the undergraduate student is that the adoption and development of the new identity as a
university student occurs relatively slowly. Burke (2006) describes a dynamic view of
identities as always changing even though it is happened slowly in response to the exigencies
of the situation. Insofar as an identity cannot change the situation but it adapts slowly,
gaining control where it can, and adapting where it must. In this context, identities refer to the
meanings associated with who individuals are in social situations (Markowski&Serpe, 2018).
These meanings can derive from internalized roles based on social positions that
individuals occupy (i.e., role identities), from relationships individuals have to others as a
member of a group (i.e., group identities), or from the meanings associated with qualities that
individuals use to regard themselves as unique from others (i.e., person identities) (Burke &
Stets, 2009; Stets & Serpe, 2013). In short, since identity is influenced by students including
students’ roles, expectations, and beliefs that also address the intersectionality of identity
dimensions. Based on the explanation above, it means that identity can be used as an element
in a way of talking about how learning changes the original individual to create a new
individual in adapting the context of communities.

Student Identity and Community of Practice

As English is used widely in diverse contexts nowadays, the needs for people to
master this language increase. To be able to interact with other people, particularly with those
who use different language, language is a prominent means. Language becomes the bridge
that connects people from various backgrounds to understand each other’s goal. This sheds
light to the importance of English language mastery since English is considered as the
international language, making the ability to communicate using English (or foreign
language) the most demanding competence among people to achieve successful
communication (Mystkowska-Wiertelak&Pawlak, 2017). People now then seek to master this
language with various ways, one of which is by enrolling into a language program.
When communicating, people are actually learning to use a language in real context.
To be able to do this, someone has to understand and master the language that they are going
to use in the conversation. In education context, the very basic knowledge of the language
learning must have been mastered first, after that students can be able to try to communicate
with other people. Learning in this context means that process in changing individual
becomes a better. This process of language learning still entails to student’s identity. In
learning a language, students have to be given opportunities to use the language. Various
activities that allow the students to ‘experience’ the language must be facilitated. As
numerous institutions currently believe that communicative language teaching should be
given the priority in the teaching of language, the main aim in learning is thus seen as
enabling the learners to use the language in every context, not merely focusing on grammar
but also fluency (Galajda, 2017; Sotlikova & Sugirin, 2016).
Wenger (1999) purposed a theory about language learning that is about becoming a
member of a Community of Practice. As described in previously, it means that language
learning can become a process for students to be an active member of a community (students
group)in interaction. Through this theory, Wenger describes the negotiation of student’s
identity that also happens in the process. Moreover, Wenger explains about the relation of
language learning and student’s identity is a negotiationto a community and the community’s
practice in order to improve their language and to adjust in a new situation. Wenger also
associates these terms as “Community of Practice” as below.

Classroom Interaction
Interaction is needed in the classroom activity. It can also help the teaching and
learning process run smoothly in order to increase students’ communication. Having a good
teaching and learning process tells how the students have interaction among them and teacher
even with the whole class. Based on Khajavy et al.(2014) classroom context is defined as all
the things that are present in the classroom that can affect individuals’ engagement. Another
scholar complements that environmental factors refer to any variables exist in the classroom
that may affect the students (Cao, 2011). Those factors that can affectively give impact on
students’ interaction in classroom are related to topic, task types, teacher’s engagement,and
class interactional pattern altogether build this classroom environment, not necessarily
separate each one as individual concept as what referred in this current study.
Moreover, Brown (2016) stated that interaction is the basis of L2 learning, through
which learners are engaged both in enhancing their own communicative abilities and in
socially, constructing their identities through collaboration and negotiation. The discussion of
classroom environment is closely related to cohesiveness, students’ perception towards the
atmosphere in the classroom, and group size (Zhang et al., 2018).Related to group size,
Khatibi and Zakari (2014) support the idea that the students in their study prefer a learning
context in the form of group discussion, meeting, and chatting with a friend they already
know.The classroom interaction is needed becauseby interacting other learners and the
teacher, learners will increase their language skill and social skill.
 To increase students’ language skill and social skill, teaching interactive act is needed
whereas interaction is the communication among teacher and students which run
continuously as responsive acts. In Tickoo’s (2009) explanation, Tickoo said that in
classroom interaction and classroom activities, making a productive class situation can be
created as follows these criteria:
1. The teacher is able to interact with the whole class.
2. The teacher is able to interact with a group, a pair or an individual pupil.
3. Students try to interact with each other: in groups, in pairs, as individuals or as a
class.
4. Students work with materials or aids and attempt the task once again individually,
in groups and so on.
Through the theory above, Eddy-U (2015) also states that the classroom atmosphere is
affected by the teacher and classmates. Joe, Hiver, and Al-Hoorie (2017) add teachers’
aspects such as teacher emotional support, teacher academic support, and classroom mutual
respect. Interaction is the centre of communication. Among students, students to teacher,
teacher to students are needed to cooperate and interact. In other words, communication is
presented through interaction since in communication there must be interaction between
people who have something to share (Rivers, 1987).

Multicultural Education
Multicultural education is a common term used to define the pluralist education type
in which all students can receive education in equal conditions. For instance, multicultural
education in Indonesia, which consists of many cultural groups, provides students with a
solid ground to continue their lives in a multicultural world. Talking about multicultural,
(Meier, 2007 as cited in Portera, 2008), multicultural education is a synonym for
multiculturalism that educational intervention, defined as multiculturalism, multicultural
education or multicultural pedagogy, works from the factor situation of the presence of two
or more cultures, and aims at the recognition of commonalities and differences. Kazancigil
(1994) explained that multiculturalism is a systematic and comprehensive response of
students to cultural and ethnic diversity, with educational, linguistic, economic and social
components and specific institutional mechanisms.
The word of multicultural first attested in 1941 in Rata (2013) defining multicultural
as relating to or containing several cultural or ethnic groups within a society. Multicultural
education can prevent antiracist in society, basically, it is important for all students,
pervasive, education for social justice, a process, and a critical pedagogy. Moreover,
multicultural education can also become a tool for every individual who has different value
systems, customs, and communication styles to discover ways to respectfully and effectively
share resources, talents and ideas. In Gorski’s (2010) study, he focuses on the third dimension
from Bank’s definition about claiming or adapting that multicultural education is a
progressive approach for transforming learning that holistically critiques and responds to
discriminatory policies and practices in education. It is strengthened by Bennett (1990)
defining multicultural education is one of approaches in teaching and learning, based upon
democratic values that foster cultural pluralism; in its most comprehensive form, it is a
situational commitment that is faced by students to achieve educational equality relating to
develop curricula that builds understanding about ethnic groups among students, and
combating oppressive practices.

Intercultural Communication
Culture is the a part of people’s life. It is included social system in certain society
which related to the values, norms and ways of behaving in a human society. Wang et al.
(2000) defined culture as the human part of the environment. It means that culture is formed
by environment. People will learn and do through the observation, they will see what people
around them do that are not related to their biological traits. However, cultures are not fixed,
they can change and interconnect although change may be slow or irregular because Cultures
are dynamic as they are created and recreated through shared interactions (Gudykunst, 1983).
Culture is something that can be learnt from parents, schools, friends, the media and the
broader community in environment. The concepts of culture and communication are strongly
related, in the sense that, an individual cannot learn or acquire any aspect of culture without
going through the process of communication. Thorugh the explanation above, culture is a
product of communication. Communication is becoming the basic feature of human life
playing the most vital role in shaping human culture and the ways of acquiring them.
People from different living area will have different cultures that have difficulties in
understanding each other because of different language. Edward T. Hall, one of the initiators
of intercultural communication in the 1950s, intercultural communication is a context that
connect two or more different cultures. According to Lim (2002), intercultural
communication is the significance of a context varies from different languages and the use of
the context to produce a meaning differs from culture to culture. Therefore, to acquire a
correct understanding one requires profound knowledge of a different group’s culture and
language. Intercultural communication can be defined as interpersonal communication
between individuals from different cultures (Rogers & Hart, 2002). In other words, the
fundamental of intercultural communication is the belief that it is through culture that people
learn to communicate. For example, there are three students from Sundaness, Batakness and
Lampungness who learn to communicate like other Sundaness, Batakness and Lampungness.
Their behavior during communication conveys meaning because it is learned and shared. In
other words, it is cultural. Thus, the ways in which people communicate, their language
patterns, style, and nonverbal behaviors are all culturally determined communication (Klopf
& Park, 1982).
To specific, intercultural communication means communication across different
cultural boundaries. This means that, when two or more people with different cultural
backgrounds interact and communicate with each other or one another, intercultural
communication is said to have taken place. Based on Ting-Todmey (1999), intercultural
communication takes place when individuals influenced by different cultural communities
negotiate shared meaning in interactions. Same as the previous example, communication
among Sundaness, Batakness and Lampungness cultural groups is an intercultural
communication, because it occurs across cultural boundaries. It is strengthen by Jens (1985)
intercultural communication can thus be defined as the sharing of information on different
levels of awareness and control between people with different cultural backgrounds, where
different cultural backgrounds include both national cultural differences and differences
which are connected with participation in the different activities that exist within a national
unit. In short, intercultural communication is communication among individuals from
different nationalities (Gudykunst, 2003).
Expanding the notion of intercultural communication to encompass inter-ethnic, inter-
religious and even inter-regional communication, as well as communication among
individuals of different sexual orientations brings every individual to the cross-cultural gap in
social community. Samovar & Porter (1997) pointed out that as cultures differ from one
another, the communication practices and behaviours of people will inevitably vary as a
result of their different perceptions of the world. Furthermore, intercultural communication,
more precisely then, is defined as the study of communication between people whose
“cultural perceptions and symbol systems are distinct enough” to alter their communication
(Samovar and Porter, 1997: 70). In their model of intercultural communication, Samovar and
Porter (1997) illustrate the process of how the meaning of a message changes when it is
encoded by a person in one culture and decoded by a person in another culture in the context
of his or her own cultural background.

In Figure 1, A, B and C represents three different cultures are called Batakness,

Lampungness and Sundaness. Batakness and Lampungness are quite similar to one another
while Sundaness is quite different because of the similar internal culture variation. Within
each culture is another form similar to the shape of the influencing parent culture. This
represents the person who has been molded by his/her culture. However, the shape of the
person is somewhat different from that the parent culture since we are all shaped by our
culture, but are also influenced by other factors as well (e.g. age, gender, class, race, etc.).
The series of arrows connecting the figures represents the production, transmission, and
interpretation of messages across cultures. When Batakness leaves a message, for example, it
carries the intended content of the message. When it reaches Lampungness, the message
changes because the new culture influences how the message is interpreted and than meaning
changes. It is because the greater the differences between the cultures, the more likely the
message will be changed. For example, the change that occurs between Batakness and
Lampungness is much less than the change between Lampungness and Sundaness. This is
because there is greater similarity between Batakness and Lampungness and the message is
interpreted more nearly like it was originally intended.

Intercultural Communication Competence

Elsen and St. John (2007) define intercultural competence by breaking down the
concept into three elements, inter, culture, and competence; the first element, inter, refers to
‘connecting’ with cultures owned by other people accommodated by rigorously understand
and communicate effectively, the culture element is defined into three conceptions, i.e. the
‘essentialist and generalised view’ which interpret culture which has to do with nationality,
ethnicity, religion, and language, the ‘essentialist and diversified conceptions of culture’
which views culture as not only have to do with nationality, ethnicity, religion, and language
but also other layers comprising gender, generation, education, social class, region or city,
language community, special interest group or family and life experiences, and the ‘anti-
essential dynamic conceptions of culture’ which sees culture as something that is created and
shaped as well as constructed through dynamic processes as a result of social or cultural
interactions, and the third element, competence, refers the aspects of knowledge, affective,
and skills through which communicative goals in intercultural context are accommodated and
attained.
Moreover, according to Bennett (2015), intercultural competence constitutes the
ability through which individuals have deep understanding and awareness of their own
culture as well as other people’s culture that is conducted through changing their own cultural
perspectives and make adaptations to other cultures that are different from them. Meanwhile,
Lustig and Koester (2010), more specifically reveal that to do effective and appropriate
intercultural interactions, one is required to involve adequate knowledge, motivation, and
actions that are interdependent one another. From Lustig and Koester’s view above, at least
there are three domains or factors influencing someone to be intercultural competent, namely
cognitive, affective, and psychomotor/skill. In addition to the concept of intercultural
competence, Daeardoff (2004) advocates pyramid model represented in Figure 1, as follows:

Desired external outcome: Showing behaviour and making

effective and appropriate communication.

Desired internal outcome: Informed frame of reference/filter

shift (adaptive, flexible, ethnorelative view and emphaty)

Knowledge & comprehension: Culture Skills: listening,

self awareness, deep understanding and conducting observation,
knowledge of culture, culture-specific interpretation, and
information, sociolinguistic awareness analysis

Requisite attitudes: Respect (valuing other cultures, cultural

diversity), openness (to intercultural learning and to people from
other cultures), Curiosity and discovery (tolerating ambiguity and
uncertainty)

Figure 2. Pyramid Model of Intercultural (Daeardoff, 2004)

 Figure 1 above indicates that the initial competence that individuals are required to
have is attitudes comprising understanding about other cultures manifested by some typical
traits such as respect, open, and curious about other cultures; next, it is followed with
knowledge and comprehension about the self-awareness as well as thorough understanding
about culture which is in line with skills manifested through listening, observation,
interpretation, analysis ability; then, those capabilities are followed by the other capabilities
such as adaptability, flexibility, ethno- relative view, and empathy which refer to desired
internal outcomes. The last stage which is expected is the external outcome, that is,
appropriate and effective behaviour and communication

Conclusion and Further Direction

From the explanation above, every individual’s identity has a different characteristic
including home culture, dialect, accent, and language. The identities are brought by
immigrant students who want to continue their education to higher level. In non-English
dominant societies, particularly in the developing world as Indonesia, minority language
speakers often experience a different language situation that individuals will adjust a
language in certain situation. The important point, students still have to learn the dominant
national/official language for their integration into society.
Through all the previous studies above, a more comprehensive focus on students’
identities and situational language learning. Therefore, this study attempts to bridge two
major gaps in the literature: the knowledge gap and population gap (Miles, 2017).First, it
appears to be a knowledge gap in previous studies. Through the previous studies, the
investigation and the relation between students’ identities and language learning in social
interaction especially EFL classroom interaction seem worthy to explore in pedagogical
context because previous studies have not yet addressed comprehensively. Second, previous
studies also indicate the existence of population gap. Previous study is primarily done in
countries where English is learned as a second language. Therefore, to fill in the gap, this
research focuses language learning and identities of students in EFL classroom interaction at
university level.
Specifically, this research will examine on the relationship between language learning
and identity in EFL classroom interactionwhether language learning and identity give a
balance contribution in EFL classroom interaction and how immigrant students present their
identities such as home culture, dialect, accent and language in diverse group.Further
research, then, needs to be done in the area that most studies of task complexity have not yet
explore.

REFERENCES
Allwood, J. (Ed.) (1985). English translation of: "Tvarkulturell kommunikatien" in
Tvarkulturell kommunikatien, papers in Authopological Linguistics 12. University of
Goteborg: Dept of Linguistics.

Bennett, C.I. (1990). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice (2nd ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bennett, J.M. (2015). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications, Inc.

Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2

classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20, 436–458.

Burke, P. J. (1991). Attitudes, behavior, and the selfin Howard, J.A., & Callero, P.L. (Ed.),
The Self-Society Interface: Cognition, Emotion, and Action. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Burke, P. J. (2006). Identity change. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(1), 81-96.

Burke, P. J., & Cast, A.(1997). Stability and change in the gender identities of newly
married couples. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 277-90.

Burke, P.J., & Reitzes, D.C. (1981).The link between identity and role performance.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 83-93.

Burke, P. J., & Stets, J.E. (2009). Identity theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cao, Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language

classrooms from an ecological perspective. System, 39, 468–479.

Clough, I. (2017). The informal faces of the (neo-) Ghetto: State confinement, formalization
and multidimensional Informalities in Italy’s Roma Camps. International Sociology,
32(4), 545– 562.

Deardorff, D.K. (2004). The identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a

student outcome of international education at institutions of higher education in the
United States. Raleigh: North Carolina State University dissertation.
Eddy-U, M. (2015). Motivation for participation or non-participation in group tasks: A
dynamic systems model of task-situated willingness to communicate. System, 50, 43–55.

Elsen, A. & St. John. (2007). Learner autonomy and intercultural competence. In M. Raya
and L. Sercu (Eds.), Challenges in teacher development: Learner autonomy and
intercultural competence (pp. 15-38). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Flecha, R., & Soler, M. (2013). Turning difficulties in to possibilities: Engaging Roma
families and students in school through dialogic learning. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 43(4), 451– 465.

Galajda, D. (2017). Communicative behaviour of a language learner. Cham, Switzerland:

Springer Nature.

Garcia-Pastor, M.D. (2018). Learner identity in EFL: an analysis of digital texts of

identity in higher education. Digital Education Review, 33, 55-76.

Gorski, P.C. (2010). The Challenge of Defining Multicultural Education. Available

at: http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/initial.html.

Gibson, M.A., & Hidalgo, N.D. (2009). Bridges to success in highschool for migrant
youth.Teachers College Record, 111(3), 683–711.

Gudykunst W.B, (2003). Intercultural Communication: Introduction. In W.B. Gudykunst

(Ed.), Cross-cultural and intercultural communication, 163-166. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Gudykunst, W.B.. & Lee, C.M. (2002). ‘Cross Cultural Communication Theories’, in
Gudykunst, W. B. and Mody, B. (Eds), Handbook of International and Intercultural
Communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Gudykunst, W.B. (1983). Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives.

Berverly Hills: Sage.

Jens, A. (1985). “Intercultural Communication”, English Translation of Tvarkulturell

Kommunikation. Papers in Anthropological Linguistics 12. University of Goteborg:
Department of Linguistics.

Joe, H., Hiver, P., & Al-Hooerie, A.H. (2017). Classroom social climate, selfdetermined
motivation, willingness to communicate, and achievement: A study of structural
relationships in instructed second language settings. Learning and Individual
Differences, 53, 133–144.
Kazancigil, A. (1994). Multiculturalism: New Policy Responses to Diversity Management of
Social Transformations (MOST) – UNESCO Policy Paper - No. 4 .Preface.

Khajavy, G.H., Ghonsooly, B., Fatemi, A.H., & Choi, C.W. (2014). Willingness to
communicate in English: A micro system model in the Iranian EFL classroom context.
TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 1–27.

Khatibi, M.B., & Zakeri, J. (2014). Iranian EFL learners’ willingness to communicate across
different context- and receiver-types. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98,
932-939.

Klopf, D.W., & Park, M. (1982). Cross cultural communication: An introduction to the
fundamentals. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.

Li, X. (2015). International Students in China: Cross-Cultural Interaction, Integration, and

Identity Construction. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 14(4), 237-254.

Lim, T.-S. (2002), ‘Language and Verbal Communication across Cultures’, in Gudykunst,
W.B. and Mody, B. (Eds), Handbook of International and Intercultural
Communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Lustig, M.W., & Koester, J. (2010). Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal

Communication
across Cultures (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Marcia, J. (1980). Identity in adolescence. Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, 5, 159-187.

Markowski, K. L., & Serpe, R.T. (2018). Identity theory paradigm integration: Assessing
the role of prominence and salience in the verification and self-esteem relationship.
Advances in Group Processes, 75–102.

Medina Audelo, R. (2017). La construcción socio discursiva de la identidaddel inmigrante

latino americano en Barcelona. Social and Education History, 6(2), 116–141.

Miles, D.A. (2017). A taxonomy of research gaps: Identifying and defining the seven
research gaps. Doctoral student workshop: Finding Research Gaps – Research Methods
and Strategies, 1–10.

Miller, J.M. (2010). Language Use, Identity, and Social Interaction: Migrant Students in
Australia. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 33(1), 69-100.

Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., &Pawlak, M. (2017).Willingness to communicate in instructed

second language acquisition: Combining a macro- and microperspective. Bristol,
 England: Multilingual Matters.

Orfield, G. (2001). Schools More Separate: Consequences of a Decade of Resegregation.

Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.

Portera, A. (2008). Intercultural education in Europe: epistemological and semantic aspects.

Intercultural Education, 19(6), 481-491.

Quiocho, A., & Ríos, F. (2000). The power of their presence: Minority group teachers and
schooling. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 485–528.

Rata, G. (2013). Bi-, cross-, inter-, multi-, pluri-, ortrans-cultural education? in Arslan, H., &
Rata, G. (Ed.), Multicultural Education: From Theory to Practice. UK: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.

Rivers, W.M. (1987). Interactive Language Teaching.New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Rogers, E.M., & Hart, W.B. (2002), ‘The Histories of Intercultural, International, and
Development Communication’, in Gudykunst, W.B., & Mody, B. (Eds), Handbook of
International and Intercultural Communication. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1–18.

Samovar, L.A., & Porter, R.E. (Eds.). (1997). Intercultural communication: A reader (eighth
ed.). Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Sotlikova, R., & Sugirin, S. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions on using communicative language
teaching in the English class. LingTera, 3(2), 203– 209.

Stets, J.E., & Serpe, R.T. (2013). Identity theory in Delamater, J., & Ward, A. (Eds.),
Handbook of social psychology. New York, NY: Springer.

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic Interactionism. Menlo Park, CA.: Benjamin/Cummings.

Stryker, S., & Richard T.S. (1982). Commitment, Identity, and Role Behavior: Theory and
Research Example in Ickes, W., & Eric S.K. (Ed.), Personality, Roles, and Social
Behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Tickoo M.L. (2009). Teaching and Learning English. Hyderabad: Orient Black Swan.

Ting-Todmey, S. (1999). Communication across cultures. New York: The Guilford press.

Wang, M.M., Brislin, R., Wang, W., Williams, D., & Chao, J.H. (2000). Turning bricks into
jade: Critical incidents for mutual understanding among Chinese and Americans.
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity,(1st ed.), ser.
Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge
University Press.

Wieher, G.R. (2000). Minority studentachievement: Passive representation and social

context in Schools. The Journal of American Politics, 62, 886–895.

Zhang, J., Beckmann, N., & Beckmann, J. F. (2018). To talk or not to talk: A review of
situational antecedents of willingness to communicate in the second language
classroom. System, 72, 226–239.