Journal of Research in Childhood Education

ISSN: 0256-8543 (Print) 2150-2641 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20

Comparative Analysis of Intercultural Sensitivity

Among Teachers Working With Refugees

Ekaterina Strekalova-Hughes

To cite this article: Ekaterina Strekalova-Hughes (2017) Comparative Analysis of Intercultural

Sensitivity Among Teachers Working With Refugees, Journal of Research in Childhood Education,
31:4, 561-570, DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2017.1346730

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2017.1346730

Published online: 17 Aug 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 680

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrc20
JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
2017, VOL. 31, NO. 4, 561–570
https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2017.1346730

Comparative Analysis of Intercultural Sensitivity Among Teachers

Working With Refugees
Ekaterina Strekalova-Hughes
University of Missouri, Kansas City, Missouri

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The unprecedented global refugee crisis and the accompanying political Received 6 April 2016
discourse places added pressures on teachers working with children who Accepted 23 August 2016
are refugees in resettling countries. Given the increased chances of having a KEYWORDS
refugee child in one’s classroom, it is critical to explore how interculturally Early childhood education;
sensitive teachers are and if working with refugees makes them more refugee children; teacher
culturally attuned. This study analyzed intercultural sensitivity of 281 tea- intercultural sensitivity;
chers in a public urban school district serving increasing numbers of urban schools
refugees. First, the study found that teachers who had experience with
refugee students did not have higher levels of intercultural sensitivity
than teachers who had no such experience. Second, the results indicated
that English as a second language teachers were more interculturally sensi-
tive than general subject area teachers. This study raises critical implications
for teacher education programs to prepare teachers who are interculturally
sensitive before they encounter refugee students in their classrooms.

My first year (as a public school teacher) there was a girl from Sierra Leone who had been shot . . . sometimes
she would be under the desk and she would scream.—An early childhood teacher

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), launched in 1950 to aid World
War II refugees, was intended to be a temporary agency. The need for it continues, however, as
involuntary displacement has reached an unprecedented magnitude, with more refugees than ever
before documented (UNHCR, 2015). The ongoing Syrian war, for example, has taken more than one
fourth of a million lives and produced 4.8 million refugees (UNHCR, 2016). At the same time,
international solidarity is “failing to match and reflect the scale and seriousness of the humanitarian
tragedy” (UNHCR, 2016), and some politicians openly perpetuate antirefugee sentiments
(Schultheis, 2016). One half of the these refugees are children (UNHCR, 2015) who are being
affected by the damaging political discourse and may face consequent negative or insensitive
attitudes of adults in power (e.g., their teachers) upon resettlement.
The influx of refugee students who are increasingly culturally diverse challenges education
systems in resettling countries to provide adequate support (Sidhu, Taylor, & Christie, 2011).
Children who are refugees and other students who are culturally diverse can benefit from culturally
responsive teaching that depends on their teachers’ intercultural sensitivity (Gay, 2010). Culturally
responsive teaching decreases dissonance between students who are culturally diverse and the
curriculum traditionally based on the dominant culture and, therefore, improves learning of such
students (Hollins, 2015). Intercultural sensitivity, central to culturally responsive teaching, is an
ability to recognize and integrate relevant cultural differences (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003).
Meanwhile, research suggests that teachers in the United States, one of the top resettling countries,
tend to minimize the cultural differences of their students who are culturally diverse (Mahon, 2006).

CONTACT Ekaterina Strekalova-Hughes strekalovahughese@umkc.edu Teacher Education & Curriculum Studies,

University of Missouri at Kansas City, 314 Education Building, 615 East 52nd Street, Kansas City, MO 64110-2446.
© 2017 Association for Childhood Education International
562 E. STREKALOVA-HUGHES

Children in their classrooms “may be further along the intercultural continuum than their teachers”
(Cushner, 2011, p. 610). Teachers’ lack of intercultural sensitivity can threaten the chance of children
who are refugees to receive equitable education in their new countries.
Basic research is necessary to understand the complex associations of teachers’ intercultural
sensitivity with students from diverse cultural backgrounds, particularly children who are refugees.
To the author’s knowledge, so far no study has directly focused on assessing intercultural sensitivity
of teachers of children who are refugees. Therefore, this quantitative study surveys 281 teachers to
explore ways of bridging cultural inequity between refugee students and their teachers. First, the
study compares levels of intercultural sensitivity, measured by the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale
(Chen & Starosta, 2000), among teachers who have had experience working with refugee students
with their colleagues who have not. Second, the study compares intercultural sensitivity levels
between English as a Second Language (ESL) and non-ESL general subject area teachers within
the sample, as ESL teachers typically work with more children who are refugees.

Review of literature
Culturally responsive teaching in the United States
Researchers, theorists, and practitioners have made a case for culturally responsive teaching to
enhance the educational experience and academic achievement of students who are culturally diverse
(Gay, 2002; Hollins, 2015; Howard, 2010; Kleinfeld, 1975; Ladson-Billings, 2014). Culturally respon-
sive teaching involves pedagogy that reflects relevant cultural and experiential lenses of the students
who are culturally diverse and is defined as “using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames
of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more
relevant to and effective for them” (Gay, 2010, p. 31).
The initial five essential components of culturally responsive teaching are “developing a knowl-
edge base about cultural diversity, including ethnic and cultural diversity content in the curriculum,
demonstrating caring and building learning communities, communicating with ethnically diverse
students, and responding to ethnic diversity in the delivery of instruction” (Gay, 2002, p. 106). This
conception of culturally responsive teaching has further expanded into the argument that “the
education of racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse students should connect in-school learning
to out-of-school living; promote educational equity and excellence; create community among
individuals from different cultural, social, and ethnic backgrounds; and develop students’ agency,
efficacy, and empowerment” (Gay, 2013, p. 49). With the growing cultural diversity in the schools
and the remaining achievement gap between the dominant culture and minoritized cultures, the
urgency for culturally responsive teaching is increasing.
Among culturally diverse student populations in the United States, children who are refugees
perhaps depend on culturally responsive teaching the most. Many children who are refugees face
combined injustices and challenges of both populations from the lower peak of the achievement gap
mountain: newcoming immigrants and students who are from traditionally marginalized minority
groups. The forced migration—sudden and unplanned displacement from their home due to life-
threatening conditions—may add to stresses and challenges experienced by children of planned
migration. Refugee families may resettle in the low-socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhoods as a
result of “housing and educational segregation” (Rutter, 2006, p. 32) and face the same challenges as
local children in poverty. In addition, young asylum seekers may have previous traumatic experi-
ences that qualified them for the “refugee” status in the first place (witnessing death of loved ones,
torture, rape, etc.). To sum up, children who are refugees enter urban schools in the United States
with limited English language knowledge, possible predisplacement related trauma, and probable
postdisplacement economic and racial/ethnic marginalization.
Education is a way back to normality for children who are refugees experiencing such trauma and
life disruption (Hamilton & Moore, 2004). However, schools often ignore the “significantly different
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 563

learning needs and sociocultural adjustments faced by children who are refugees compared with
migrants and international students” (Sidhu & Taylor, 2007, p. 283). The education children who are
refugees who are resettled receive may have no connection to their prior knowledge and experiences.
The psychological needs of some children who are refugees can get mistaken for disruptive class-
room behavior and lead teachers to feeling “disappointed, frustrated and even angry with the child”
(Blackwell & Melzak, 2000, p. 10). Culturally responsive teaching has the potential to connect school
to lived experiences and cultural frames of reference for refugee students, making sure that academic
knowledge and skills are “more personally meaningful, have higher interest appeal, and are learned
more easily and thoroughly” (Gay, 2002, p. 106). This approach can help some children who are
refugees overcome their classroom behaviors associated with trauma (e.g., disruptiveness, inability to
concentrate, withdrawal). A classroom that is more personally meaningful and interesting may
address traumatized refugee children’s “need to be completely captivated by and engrossed in
whatever they are doing in order for their minds not to wander back to their past, or to current
anxieties” (Blackwell & Melzak, 2000, p. 5). Culturally responsive teaching has the power to build on
the unique strengths of children and their families who are culturally diverse and thereby bring their
uprooted lives back to normality and beyond.

Intercultural sensitivity and education of refugee children

Intercultural sensitivity is a fundamental predisposition of culturally responsive teaching, as “racial,
ethnic, and cultural attitudes and beliefs are always present, often problematic, and profoundly
significant in shaping teaching conceptions and actions” (Gay, 2010, p. 143). Although beliefs and
attitudes do not always translate into action, cultural indifference and ignorance can hardly lead to
social justice actions on behalf of refugee students who are culturally diverse. Before the action of
culturally responsive teaching can be embodied by teachers of students who need it the most,
intercultural sensitivity has to be internalized. Ladson-Billings (2014) states that “the secret behind
culturally relevant pedagogy [is] the ability to link principles of learning with deep understanding of
(and appreciation for) culture” (p. 77).
The topic of diversity has permeated the teacher preparation and educational policy discourse,
bringing some recognition to its importance. It is rare to hear in a school that cultural diversity is not
accepted—most say they welcome it with open arms (Gorski, 2009). However, this often leads to a
“single-minded romantic versions of ‘celebrating diversity’ that promise much but stipulate little”
(Jeannot, 2005, p. 322). The “celebrating diversity” version reinforces teachers’ focus on the surface
culture and leads to such extreme examples as when a teacher took her students to Taco Bell to
celebrate Cinco de Mayo (author’s personal experience). The research captures the possible result of
this popular take on embracement of diversity among inservice teachers. Mahon (2006) found that
teachers tend to minimize the importance of cultural differences among their students and in reality
practice culture neutral education. Bayles (2009) echoes these findings, “While teachers may have
familiarity with different cultures and be aware of differences in cultural patterns, such as beliefs, and
communication styles, they may minimize students’ cultural differences and apply universal values
and principles in their educational practices” (p. 110).
Such cultural-vacuum classrooms lead to cultural misunderstandings, conflicts, and discrimina-
tion of students whose culture is nonmainstream (Banks & Banks, 2009). Cultural “misinterpreta-
tions are especially dangerous in the case of children who are refugees since their cultural differences
often mask special psychological and educational needs, caused by traumatic refugee experiences”
(Strekalova, 2013, p. 4). School or larger community discrimination, bullying from peers, disruptive
or withdrawal behavior in the classroom, and lack of school–home partnerships all could be
connected to culture-free educational experiences of children who are refugees. Such culture-mute
educational settings may further perpetuate the cycle of achievement gap based on the benchmark
set predominantly by the White middle-class students in schools with “Eurocentric orientations and
emphasis” (Gay, 2010, p. 143).
564 E. STREKALOVA-HUGHES

Furthermore, intercultural sensitivity is necessary when teachers realize that being a refugee does not
define an identical educational trajectory for all children identified under this status. Children who are
refugees come from a variety of cultural backgrounds and diverse experiences. Being a refugee is more
of a “bureaucratic identity” and “premigratory experiences specific to particular countries or groups that
determine educational progress, rather than ‘refugeeness’” (Rutter, 2006, p. 33). Teachers have to do
their interculturally sensitive homework on each refugee child before culturally responsive teaching can
truly be responsive to these children’s unique strengths and diverse needs.
An ethnocentric categorization of refugees into a troubled group of the needy (Kisiara, 2015)
may further perpetuate their academic and generational economic struggle (Blackwell & Melzak,
2000; Rutter, 2006). Teachers may give up on helping a group of students, thinking “there is
nothing we can do.” This attitude can lead to what Ladson-Billings (2014) calls “classroom
death.” “A death in the classroom refers to teachers who stops trying to reach each and every
student. . . . Instead of teaching, such people become mere functionaries of a system” (p. 77).
Intercultural sensitivity is needed to discover the experiential and ability wealth that many
children who are refugees bring to the classroom. For example, resourcefulness, resiliency, high
value of education, and a strong work ethic (Strekalova-Hughes & Wang, 2017; Blackwell &
Melzak, 2000). Culturally responsive teaching that can build on these diverse strengths is
grounded in teachers’ intercultural sensitivity as the ability to detect, value, and integrate cultural
differences. “The idea that learners can be sources and resources of knowledge and skills—a
critical component of culturally relevant pedagogy” (Ladson-Billings, 2014, p. 79).

Research on teachers’ intercultural sensitivity

Intercultural sensitivity is largely understudied in education, especially among teachers who serve
children who are refugees in urban schools. Limited intercultural research related to teachers mostly
looks at their intercultural development as a result of international experiences. For example, some
research explores study abroad (Fang, Clarke, & Wei, 2016; Marx & Moss, 2011), field experiences
abroad (Walters, Garii, & Walters, 2009), student teaching abroad (Cushner & Chang, 2015), and
teaching abroad (Fretheim, 2007). “Without a concerted effort to address intercultural growth,”
experiences abroad are “insufficient in bringing about a change” (Cushner & Chang, 2015, p. 165).
Further, Holliday (2010) and Dervin (2016) warn researchers about overconnecting culture with foreign
and international representations, as an ideologically problematic approach to interculturality. Several
studies assessed pre- or inservice teachers’ levels of intercultural development within their countries,
such as elementary education students in Greece (Spinthourakis, Karatzia-Stavlioti, & Roussakis, 2009),
secondary teachers in Hong Kong (Westrick & Yuen, 2007), and Grade 1 through 12 teachers in Finland
(Acquah, Tandon, & Lempinen, 2015). Only a few studies have looked at intercultural sensitivity levels
of inservice teachers in the United States.
Mahon (2006) assessed the intercultural sensitivity of 155 elementary and secondary school teachers
to find that the majority of them had an ethnocentric worldview. Specifically, teachers tended to
minimize their students’ cultural differences. Findings of a research conducted by Bayles (2009) are
particularly relevant to this study. She asked the following guiding question to steer her investigation:
“Is it possible that a teacher who has spent many years working with ethnically or linguistically diverse
students in the U.S. may have acquired a more ethnocentric worldview than a teacher with more
limited experience?” (Bayles, 2009, p. 7). As a baseline, she found that 91% of 233 teachers had an
ethnocentric worldview, ranging from denial to minimization of cultural differences. More interest-
ingly, the number of years teaching and years of teaching students who are culturally diverse was
positively related to higher intercultural sensitivity. This finding contradicts DeJaeghere and Zhang’s
(2008) finding of no significant difference for years of teaching. Bayles (2009) calls for further
investigation of teaching experience of students who are culturally diverse. This study addresses this
call by exploring differences in intercultural sensitivity of teachers who have experience with children
who are refugees, a highly culturally diverse group, compared to those who do not.
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 565

Purpose
Two major questions guided this investigation into intercultural sensitivity of teachers working with
children who are refugees:

(1) Do teachers working with children who are refugees have higher levels of intercultural
sensitivity than teachers who do not?
(2) Do ESL teachers have higher levels of intercultural sensitivity than general subject area
teachers?

Method
This article is based on the quantitative results from a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) on intercultural sensitivity and factors related to its development
among early childhood teachers working in a highly multicultural and multilingual urban public
school district. Participants were early childhood teachers working with refugee, immigrant, and/or
native-born children. A total of 281 teachers completed the survey. The study was primarily
quantitative in nature, enriched by qualitative data from individual follow-up interviews that were
conducted to better understand or explain the quantitative findings. This article focuses on reporting
the quantitative findings of the study.

Setting
The study was conducted in an urban public school district with a consistent inflow and growing
population of refugee students, located in the northeastern United States. Traditionally, refugees
have been resettled in metropolitan areas, making urban landscapes home to more refugees than
rural and suburban areas. The less expensive housing that resettling agencies can afford contributes
to a housing segregation affecting many refugee families (Rutter, 2006). Upon resettlement, children
who are refugees are often enrolled in free public school systems that already have an established or
somewhat established support for students who are newly arrived (e.g., ESL classrooms, interpreters
and academic coaches for variety of languages). Thus, an urban public school district often becomes
a target setting for education research on children who are refugees.
Seventy-seven percent of the student population in the selected public school district were
minoritized ethnic groups (Black/African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian or Native
Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Multiracial, and American Indian or Alaska Native). Sixty-seven
languages were spoken at the time of the study. Students identified as limited English proficient
(LEP) or English language learners (ELL) were 10% of the population.

Instruments
An online survey consisting of two quantitative measurements was administered among early
childhood teachers working in the target urban public school district. The first measurement, the
Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS), was a 24-item self-reported measure developed by Chen and
Starosta (2000) to assess intercultural sensitivity. Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted to evaluate
internal consistency reliability. The analysis showed a value of .88, indicating good internal con-
sistency (George & Mallery, 2003).
The second quantitative measurement used in the survey was the Educators’ Intercultural
Experiences Inventory (EIEI) (Strekalova, 2013). The inventory was designed to gather data on
intercultural experiences that are specific to inservice teachers. The experiences were conceptually
grouped together to form 10 domains (most including several subquestions): (1) cultural
566 E. STREKALOVA-HUGHES

background, (2) personal intercultural connections, (3) intercultural environment, (4) foreign
language abilities, (5) experience abroad, (6) world media, (7) preservice diversity training, (8)
inservice diversity training, (9) intercultural work experiences, and (10) cultural events involvement.
Of particular interest to the study was the domain of intercultural work experience, which asked
questions about the depth of experience with immigrant and refugee population. The number of
refugee students derived from teachers’ responses to the inventory was analyzed against their
intercultural sensitivity score measured by the ISS.

Research question 1
The researcher hypothesized that teaching children who are refugees could be one of the inter-
cultural experiences that might positively affect intercultural sensitivity of teachers. An independent
sample t test showed no statistically significant differences between the teachers who had children
who are refugees and those who did not at the p < .05 level of significance for the mean intercultural
sensitivity score (ISS) (Tables 1 and 2). The number of children who are refugees was found to be
similarly insignificant in relation to teachers’ intercultural sensitivity.

Research question 2
Given the nature of ESL work, the researcher hypothesized that ESL teachers working exclusively
with children who are culturally and linguistically different from students who are mainstream
would have higher intercultural sensitivity than teachers of general subject areas. The result of an
independent sample t test showed statistically significant difference at the p < .01 level for the mean
intercultural sensitivity score between the ESL teachers and teachers of other subject areas (Table 3).

Discussion
The study hypothesized that teachers working with children who are refugees may have higher levels
of intercultural sensitivity than teachers who do not. Contrary to the author’s hypothesis, teachers
with experience serving children who are refugees had similar levels of intercultural sensitivity as
their colleagues without such experience. In other words, teachers who find themselves teaching
refugee students are not better prepared to address the unique needs of children who are refugees.

Table 1. Reliability statistics.

Cronbach’s alpha N of items
.886 24

Table 2. Group statistics and independent sample t test for working with refugee students.
Group statistics
Refugee students Yes/No N Mean SD SE Mean
ISS Yes 161 4.1109 .43091 .03396
No 97 4.1556 .37916 .03850
Independent samples test
t df Significance (1-tailed) Mean difference SE difference
ISS −.844 256 .800 −.04470 .05299
Note. ISS = Intercultural Sensitivity Scale.
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 567

Table 3. Group statistics and independent sample t test for English as a Second Language (ESL)/non-ESL teachers.
Group statistics
ESL N Mean SD SE mean
ISS ESL 16 4.4150 .37817 .09454
Non-ESL 265 4.1093 .40318 .02477
Independent samples test
t df Significance (1-tailed) Mean difference SE difference
ISS 2.955 279 .002** .30568 .10346
Note. ISS = Intercultural Sensitivity Scale.
**Significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

Furthermore, the experience of teaching refugees in and of itself is not sufficient to fill in any
intercultural sensitivity gap.
To the author’s knowledge, no previous research directly assessed intercultural sensitivity of
teachers working with children who are refugees. However, by proxy, this study supports the
findings of DeJaeghere and Zhang (2008) that showed no significant increase in intercultural
sensitivity associated with longer teaching experience, and therefore more exposure to students
who are culturally diverse. The results are also consistent with the conclusion of Acquah et al. (2015)
who found that despite working in a school with a diverse student population teachers had “low
levels of awareness regarding how the factors of language, culture and ethnicity influence the
academic outcomes of diverse learners” (p. 11). At the same time, results of this study somewhat
contradict Bayles (2009) who found years of teaching students who were culturally diverse positively
related to teachers’ intercultural sensitivity growth, though not significant enough to move teachers
out of their overall ethnocentric worldviews (Bennett, 1986). More studies exploring teachers’
exposure to children who are refugees are needed to accurately position the findings of this study
within relevant research.
There are several possible interpretations of the lack of significantly higher intercultural sensitivity
among teachers exposed to refugee students. Potentially, teachers may have even less engagement
with refugee students and their families compared to other students due to the language barrier. For
example, parent–teacher conferences are often mediated through an interpreter. Therefore, the
communication is pressed for time and limits opportunities for informal cultural exchange of
meanings. In addition, teachers may feel unprepared to handle the potential emotional challenges
that children who are refugees may disclose. For example, comforting a refugee student with a
posttraumatic stress disorder may be out of the teacher’s level of expertise. Therefore, not engaging
with refugee students may be an avoidance method. An alternative explanation could be the level of
motivation teachers have for working with children who are refugees (Strekalova, 2013). Specifically,
teachers who positively view the opportunity to work with students who are culturally diverse may
have a higher motivation to interact with and learn from refugee students and their families. In
contrast, candidates accepting a teaching position who are unaware of the extent of student diversity
in the district could become overwhelmed and bypass cultural learning opportunities. With this in
mind, having children who are refugees in one’s classroom should be carefully viewed as an
intercultural experience. The intercultural learning potential of teaching refugees may depend on
the individual teachers and circumstances surrounding their involvement with refugee students in
their classroom. Strekalova-Hughes and Wang (2017) looked into the role of the person and the
experience in intercultural development of teachers working with refugees. The findings of the study
suggest that intercultural sensitivity develops as a result of an experiential interculturality conti-
nuum, a path of the person’s past, present, and future experiences related to interculturality that are
interconnected through the person undergoing them. In this continuum, the teacher is the able agent
that selects and impacts the experiences (e.g., through personal preexperience worldview and
motivation). At the same time, experiences shape the teacher’s inteculturality lens and motivation,
568 E. STREKALOVA-HUGHES

which affects future experiences. Therefore, teaching refugee students is one of many experiences
that cumulatively affect the intercultural development of teachers who have opportunities to engage
with the experience in more beneficial ways for their own intercultural growth.
The second hypothesis of the study held that ESL teachers might have higher levels of intercultural
sensitivity than general subject area teachers. The findings suggest that teachers serving ESL students
exclusively indeed have a higher intercultural sensitivity than general subject area teachers. There are
several potential interpretations of these findings. Perhaps, the ESL teachers are self-selected into the
field. Specifically, the teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) major assumes a career
path that consists of working with students who are culturally diverse learning English in addition to
their mother tongue(s). This may drive interculturally predisposed candidates into teacher preparation
programs who are initially more ready to work with students who are culturally diverse. Alternatively,
even if ESL teacher candidates initially have the same intercultural sensitivity as their general education
peers, the TESOL program itself may provide students with more opportunities to experience cultural
differences (focus on cultural differences in courses, diverse field placements, etc.). Interestingly, Nieto
and Booth (2010) found that ESL university instructors had a higher level of intercultural sensitivity in
the area of interactional engagement than non-ESL university instructors. Perhaps, ESL teacher
candidates have higher intercultural sensitivity because of their teacher preparation instructors who
model interculturally sensitive practices and mindsets in their university classrooms.

Conclusion
This study looked into intercultural sensitivity of early childhood teachers working with children
who are refugees, a culturally diverse and vulnerable population, in an urban pubic school district in
the United States. Although numbers of refugee students are increasing in the early childhood arena
worldwide, previous research suggests that teachers lack intercultural sensitivity and may not be
prepared to serve students in a culturally responsive manner (Acquah et al., 2015; Mahon, 2006;
Yuen & Grossman, 2009).
The study found that working with the highly diverse population of children who are refugees is
not related to teachers’ higher intercultural sensitivity. These findings are problematic because
“whether positive, negative, or ambivalent, beliefs and attitudes always precede and shape behaviors”
(Gay, 2013, p. 49). In other words, children who are refugees are more likely to experience a teacher
whose behaviors are preceded and shaped by a lack of intercultural sensitivity. Such behavior is less
likely to warrant culturally responsive teaching that supports opportunities for children who are
refugees for equitable education.
Given the growing diversity in schools, “Eurocentric orientations and emphases are more
inappropriate now than ever before for students from culturally, racially, and ethnically diverse
backgrounds” (Gay, 2010, p. 143). Teacher preparation programs are called to rise to the occasion
and prepare students who are more interculturally sensitive. “Shifts in the ideological orientations
and programmatic actions of teacher education needed to meet these demands will require commit-
ments to cultural diversity at levels of intensity, depth, and magnitude that far exceed anything done
before” (Gay, 2010, p. 143). Because teaching children who are refugees inservice alone does not
increase interculturally sensitivity (based on the findings of this study), three major programmatic
actions could steer the shift. First, teacher preparation programs could focus on revising admission
practices and admit more intercultural sensitive teacher candidates. Second, teacher preparation
programs could intensify their intercultural development preparation and make increased intercul-
tural sensitivity a graduation requirement. Third, the academic discourse could expand conceptua-
lization of culture and intercultural experiences (Dervin & Tournebise, 2013; Holliday, 2010) to
more accurately study and teach interculturality.
Education of children who are refugees in their countries of resettlement goes beyond intercultural
sensitivity of individual teachers or even effectiveness of teacher preparation programs. Several scholars
(Rutter, 2006; Sidhu et al., 2011) caution researchers from focusing on education of children who are
 JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 569

refugees in a political and economic vacuum. Further empirical explorations into teachers of children
who are refugees should be placed within political and economic contexts (Strekalova-Hughes & Wang,
2017).

References
Acquah, E. O., Tandon, M., & Lempinen, S. (2015). Teacher diversity awareness in the context of changing demo-
graphics. European Educational Research Journal, 5(2), 218–235.
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (2009). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
Bayles, P. P. (2009). Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of elementary teachers in bilingual schools in a Texas school
district (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations and Theses database. (3349761)
Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179–196. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(86)90005-2
Blackwell, D., & Melzak, S. (2000). Far from the battle but still at war: Troubled refugee children in school. London,
England: Child Psychotherapy Trust.
Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (2000). The development and validation of the intercultural sensitivity scale. Human
Communication, 3(1), 1–15.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and condicting mixed methods reaserach. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Cushner, K. (2011). Intercultural research in teacher education: An essential intersection in the preparation of globally
competent teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 33, 601–614. doi:10.1080/01626620.2011.627306
Cushner, K., & Chang, S. C. (2015). Developing intercultural competence through overseas student teaching: Checking
our assumptions. Intercultural Education, 26(3), 165–178. doi:10.1080/14675986.2015.1040326
DeJaeghere, J. G., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Development of intercultural competence among U.S. American teachers:
Professional development factors that enhance competence. Intercultural Education, 19(3), 255–268. doi:10.1080/
14675980802078624
Dervin, F. (2016). Interculturality in communication and education: A theoretical and methodological toolbox.
Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dervin, F., & Tournebise, C. (2013). Turbulences in intercultural communication education (ICE): Does it affect
higher education? Intercultural Education, 24(6), 532–543. doi:10.1080/14675986.2013.866935
Fang, W., Clarke, A., & Wei, Y. (2016). Empty success or brilliant failure: An analysis of Chinese students’ study
abroad experience in a collaborative master of education program. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20
(2), 140–163. doi:10.1177/1028315315587106
Fretheim, A. (2007). Assessing the intercultural sensitivity of educators in an American international school
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3010582)
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116.
doi:10.1177/0022487102053002003
Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1/2),
143–152. doi:10.1177/0022487109347320
Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70. doi:10.1111/curi.12002
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gorski, P. C. (2009). Intercultural education as social justice. Intercultural Education, 20(2), 87–90. doi:10.1080/
14675980902922135
Hamilton, R. J., & Moore, D. (2004). Educational interventions for refugee children: Theoretical perspectives and
implementing best practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural devel-
opment inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 421–443. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(03)
00032-4
Holliday, A. (2010). Intercultural communication and ideology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hollins, E. (2015). Culture in school learning: Revealing the deep meaning (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Howard, T. C. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools: Closing the achievement gap in America’s classrooms.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Jeannot, M. (2005). Educational interventions for refugee children: Theoretical perspectives and implementing best
practices. Teachers College Record, 107(2), 319–322.
Kisiara, O. (2015). Marginalized at the centre: How public narratives of suffering perpetuate perceptions of refugees’
helplessness and dependency. Migration Letters, 12(2), 162–171.
570 E. STREKALOVA-HUGHES

Kleinfeld, J. (1975). Effective teachers of Eskimo and Indian students. The School Review, 83, 301–344. doi:10.1086/
443191
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: Aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84.
doi:10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751
Mahon, J. (2006). Under the invisibility cloak? Teacher understanding of cultural difference. Intercultural Education,
17(4), 391–405. doi:10.1080/14675980600971426
Marx, H., & Moss, D. M. (2011). Please mind the culture gap: Intercultural development during a teacher education
study abroad program. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 35–47. doi:10.1177/0022487110381998
Nieto, C., & Booth, M. Z. (2010). Cultural competence: Its influence on the teaching and learning of international
students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4), 406–425. doi:10.1177/1028315309337929
Rutter, J. (2006). Refugee children in the UK. London, England: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Schultheis, E. (2016, June 11). Donald Trump warns refugees could be “Trojan horse.” CBS News. Retrieved from
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-warns-refugees-could-be-trojan-horse-for-u-s/
Sidhu, R., & Taylor, S. (2007). Educational provision for refugee youth in Australia: Left to chance? Journal of
Sociology, 43(3), 283–300. doi:10.1177/1440783307080107
Sidhu, R., Taylor, S., & Christie, P. (2011). Schooling and refugees: Engaging with the complex trajectories of
globalisation. Global Studies of Childhood, 1(2), 92–103. doi:10.2304/gsch.2011.1.2.92
Spinthourakis, J. A., Karatzia-Stavlioti, E., & Roussakis, Y. (2009). Pre-service teacher intercultural sensitivity assess-
ment as a basis for addressing multiculturalism. Intercultural Education, 20(3), 267–276. doi:10.1080/
14675980903138624
Strekalova, E. (2013). Intercultural sensitivity of teachers working with refugee children (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Strekalova-Hughes, E., & Wang, X. C. (2017). Intercultural experiential continuum: A case study of early childhood
teachers working with refugee children. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 6(1), 61–88.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (2015, June 18). Worldwide displacement hits all-time high as war and
persecution increase. News. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org
UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (2016, March 15). Syria conflict at 5 years: The biggest refugee and displace-
ment crisis of our time demands a huge surge in solidarity. Press releases. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org
Walters, L. M., Garii, B., & Walters, T. (2009). Learning globally, teaching locally: Incorporating international exchange
and intercultural learning into pre?service teacher training. Intercultural Education, 20(Sup1), S151–158. doi:10.1080/
14675980903371050
Westrick, J. M., & Yuen, C. Y. (2007). The intercultural sensitivity of secondary teachers in Hong Kong: A comparative
study with implications for professional development. Intercultural Education, 18(2), 129–145. doi:10.1080/
14675980701327247
Yuen, C. Y., & Grossman, D. L. (2009). The intercultural sensitivity of student teachers in three cities. Compare, 39(3), 349–365.