Community College Journal of Research and Practice

ISSN: 1066-8926 (Print) 1521-0413 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

Intercultural competence and student

engagement of U.S. community college Students: a
mixed method study

Rebecca L. Riley, Rebecca M. Bustamante & Stacey L. Edmonson

To cite this article: Rebecca L. Riley, Rebecca M. Bustamante & Stacey L. Edmonson (2016)
Intercultural competence and student engagement of U.S. community college Students: a
mixed method study, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40:1, 34-46, DOI:
10.1080/10668926.2014.961588

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2014.961588

Published online: 20 Mar 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 107

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucjc20

Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 04 February 2016, At: 14:35
 COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
2016, VOL. 40, NO. 1, 34–46
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2014.961588

Intercultural competence and student engagement of U.S.

community college Students: a mixed method study
Rebecca L. Rileya, Rebecca M. Bustamanteb and Stacey L. Edmonsonc
a
Lonestar College-Kingwood, Houston (Kingwood), Texas, USA; bDepartment of Educational Leadership, Sam
Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USA; cCollege of Education, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville,
Texas, USA

ABSTRACT
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 14:36 04 February 2016

In a culturally diverse society, United States community colleges are ideally

positioned to develop intercultural competence in students. This mixed
method study focused on the relationship between student engagement, as
measured by the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE)
(2005), and intercultural competence, as assessed by the Intercultural
Development Inventory (IDI) (Bennett & Hammer, 1998). Student scores from
the IDI were correlated with five benchmark measures of the CCSSE. Four of
the five CCSSE benchmarks were significantly correlated with IDI scores. Then,
students scoring in the highest and lowest quartiles on the IDI participated in
focus groups to explore their perceptions of intercultural competence. Analysis
revealed implications for community college leaders that include the value of
using instruments like the CSSE and IDI to assess students’ intercultural com-
petence. Practical implications also included the importance of collaborative
classroom activities and exposure to racially and ethnically diverse faculty and
students, as well as college-sponsored community service, cultural events, and
study-abroad opportunities

An individual’s ability to function in a culturally diverse, global society is increasingly essential as

world economies become more interdependent and the use of information technology becomes
ubiquitous. Moreover, scholars have purported that United States community colleges can play key
roles in preparing globally competent citizens and developing the intercultural competence of adult
students. This is because colleges provide services to such a diverse cross-section of the U.S.
population, including nontraditional students (Emert & Pearson, 2007; Green, 2007). In 2012,
more than four million people were enrolled in U.S. community colleges (American Association
of Community Colleges [AACC], 2013). Additionally, because many U.S. students begin their higher
education in community colleges, these institutions ideally are positioned to help students success-
fully navigate the demands of a diverse and international labor market, as well as assume respon-
sibilities in a multicultural democracy (Alfred, Ewell, Hudgkins, & McClenney, 2007; American
Council on International Intercultural Education, 1996; Deardorff, 2006; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, &
Gurin, 2002). To enact this important role, community college leaders increasingly are prompted to
identify effective strategies to engage students in ways that cultivate their abilities to interact
constructively with people who represent a variety of cultures (Emert & Pearson, 2007; Zhao, 2002).

CONTACT: Rebecca M. Bustamante [email protected] Department of Educational Leadership, Sam Houston State
University, Campus Box 2119, Huntsville, TX 77340-2119.
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 35

Intercultural competence
One empirically tested construct that relates to an individual’s ability to interact effectively and
appropriately with culturally different people is intercultural competence. With origins in the fields
of cross-cultural psychology and communication, the notion of intercultural competence has been
defined as an individual’s ability to interact in meaningful, appropriate, and effective ways with others
whose cultural backgrounds differ from one’s own (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003; Paige, 2004;
Pope & Reynolds, 1997). Three principal themes can be found in reviews of studies on intercultural
competence including an individual’s ability to (a) maintain relationships with culturally diverse
others, (b) communicate effectively and appropriately with minimal loss or distortion, and (c)
cooperate with others for a mutual need or interest (Fantini, 2000; Wiseman & Koester, 1993).
In 1993, Bennett developed the six-stage Developmental Model for Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)
and framed intercultural competence as an individual’s affective, cognitive, and behavioral response to
cultural difference. The six stages of the DMIS include: (a) denial (belief that one’s culture is the only
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 14:36 04 February 2016

reality); (b) defense (view that one’s culture is superior); (c) minimization (view that all humans have
the same virtues without regard for differences and privilege of dominant forces); (d) acceptance
(recognition of one’s own culture as one of many complex worldviews); and (e) adaptation (expanded
world view and empathy across cultures).
The DMIS served as the theoretical basis for the development of Bennett and Hammer’s (1998)
Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), which was designed to provide individual profiles of
where people fall into one of the six DMIS stages as associated with a broad range of attitudes,
beliefs, and behaviors. The IDI commonly is used as a cross-cultural training tool and increasingly
has been utilized by universities in recent years as a viable assessment of college student’s inter-
cultural competence (Deardorff, 2006).
Central to the development of intercultural competence is the opportunity to engage with others who
are culturally different (Ting-Toomey, 1999) and to have contact with others (Allport, 1954). In applying
his classic contact theory, Allport found that under certain conditions (i.e., equal status, pursuit of a
common goal, and support from authorities), people from diverse racial and cultural backgrounds were
more likely to respond favorably to each other with increased contact. Depending on geographic
location, community colleges provide likely places where students might come in contact with diverse
populations. Moreover, research on student engagement suggests that the extent to which college
students engage in academic and social activities on community college campuses affects their learning
and development (Kuh, 2001, 2009) and their attitudes about and behaviors toward others who are
culturally diverse (Gurin et al., 2002). Therefore, community college researchers and practitioners might
find value in taking an interdisciplinary approach to examining potential relationships between the
student engagement and the development and assessment of intercultural competence among commu-
nity college students.

Student engagement
College student engagement has been generally defined as, “college students’ exposure to and
participation in a constellation of effective educational practices at colleges and universities”
(McCormick, Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2013, p. 47). More specifically, the notion of student engagement
is described as a set of constructs that relate to the amount of time and energy that students devote to
educationally purposeful activities (curricular and extracurricular) that lead to learning and success
(Kuh, 2001; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2007). In four-year institutions, student
engagement frequently is measured by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (2014);
and in community colleges, it is measured by the Community College Survey of Student Engagement
(CCSSE) (2005).
Since the 1970s, higher education scholars have explored how what students do during college,
influences their learning and personal development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Wolf-Wendel,
 36 R. L. RILEY ET AL.

Ward, & Kinzie, 2009). Original scholarship related to student engagement evolved from
Astin’s (1993, 1999) theories of student involvement (e.g., input-environment-output model) and
often are related to Tinto’s notions of academic and social integration (Tinto, 1993). Research on
student engagement and the college experience have suggested that student engagement has a
positive impact on a number of outcomes (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005); however,
students’ backgrounds and the quality and level of their efforts in both curricular and extra
curricular offerings on campus make a difference (McCormick et al., 2013). Some of these outcomes
include persistence in college, attitudes about the college experience, retention, student success, and
even knowledge retained after graduation (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998, 2005). Specifically related to
community college students, who are less likely to be active in college-sponsored extracurricular
activities, researchers have emphasized the importance of engaging students through classroom
activities that provide truly valuable, experiential learning experiences (McClenney, 2007).
More recently, student engagement researchers have explored the connection between several
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 14:36 04 February 2016

aspects of student engagement that have been labeled high impact practices for students’ personal
and academic development; these include service learning (Westrick, 2004); learning communities
(Zhao & Kuh, 2004); and collaborative learning (Cabrera, Nora, Bernal, Terenzini, &
Pascarella, 1998). These high impact practices involve close interaction with faculty and culturally
diverse groups of people in hands-on situations that are correlated with deeper approaches to
learning (McCormick et al., 2013). These types of student engagement activities likely also provide
opportunities for enhanced intercultural contact competence development. Moreover, higher educa-
tion researchers have reported benefits for students who attend colleges with diverse environments
and have noted increases in a number of educational and democratic citizenship outcomes, (Chang,
Astin, & Kim, 2004; Gurin et al., 2002; Gurin, Dey, Gurin, & Hurtado, 2003; Zhao, 2002).
Hurtado (2005) even suggested that students’ cognitive development increased when they were
purposively engaged with diverse others. However, few studies have been conducted to explore the
relationship between student engagement as measured by the CCSSE (2005) and intercultural
competence as operationalized in the extant research literature as measured by the IDI (Hammer
et al., 2003).
At a time when diversity and intercultural competence are essential in higher education settings
(Winkle-Wagner & Locks, 2014), more studies are needed to explore how student engagement and
intercultural competence development might be related. Examining relationships between these
constructs might provide a basis for further research and enhanced use of existing assessment
instruments, as well as unveil potential strategies that colleges might implement to cultivate inter-
cultural competence among community college students.
The purpose of this mixed method study was to explore potential correlations between indicators
of student engagement, as measured by the Community College Student Engagement Survey
(CCSSE), and the development of intercultural competence, as determined by the IDI, among
community college students in a large community college system in the south central United
States. Additional objectives of this research were to explore these community college students’
perceptions of their own engagement and intercultural competence experience, as well as elicit
students’ perspectives on how community college experiences potentially influence intercultural
competence development.

Theoretical framework
This research was informed by several concepts including theories of student involvement
(Astin, 1993, 1999); student engagement (Kuh, 2001, 2009) and integration (Tinto, 1993); the general
notion of intercultural competence (Pope & Reynolds, 1997); the Developmental Model of
Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) (Bennett & Hammer, 1998); Allport’s (1954) contact theory; and
Derry’s (1996) schema theory.
 COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 37

Schema theory appeared relevant to examining relationships between student engagement and
intercultural competence because a schema is described as a complex mental pattern that one
imposes on reality in order to respond to it (Derry, 1996; Thornton & McEntee, 1995). People
have schemas for objects, tasks, other individuals, and whole cultures. When existing schemas are
disrupted, a person must respond in some way, often by forming new mental categories and revising
viewpoints (Thornton & McEntee). Students actively engaged in collaborative learning, discussion
groups, and extracurricular activities with others, particularly those who are culturally different, are
more likely than passive learners to encounter new ideas, necessitating the formation of new schemas
(Endicott, Bock, & Nevarez, 2002). Reflecting on knowledge and applying effort to acquiring new
knowledge can enhance acquisition of schemas and their refinement (Nishida, 1999).
The theories of student engagement and intercultural competence were most central to this study
because the promotion of student engagement and development of students’ abilities to function
effectively in a diverse, global society are important foci for United States higher education institu-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 14:36 04 February 2016

tions. This, particularly, is apparent by the widespread use of instruments such as the NSSE, to
measure student engagement in four-year institutions of higher education in the United States, and
the CSSE instrument used to assess student engagement in United States community colleges.
Additionally, the IDI is increasingly widely used to assess intercultural competence by various higher
education institutions.

Method
To examine potential relationships between community college engagement and students’ intercul-
tural competence, a sequential, quantitative dominant, mixed methods design was applied (Teddlie
& Tashakkori, 2009). Mixed methods were used in this exploratory study to allow for deeper insights
afforded by the use of more than one method and to provide stronger evidence to the phenomenon
being studied (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Two research questions, one quantitative and one
qualitative, were addressed in this study:
(1) What was the relationship between student engagement, as measured by the five benchmark
areas of the CCSSE, and intercultural competence, as measured by the IDI, among students in
a large community college district?
(2) What were students’ perceptions about their own experiences of college engagement and their
development of intercultural competence?
For the quantitative phase of the study, a cross-sectional correlation design was used to examine
the relationships between self-reported levels of engagement, as measured by the CCSSE bench-
marks, and intercultural competence, as determined by student responses on the IDI. For the
qualitative portion of the study, a purposeful sample of students whose scores fell into the highest
and lowest quartile ranges (as extreme examples at high and low ends of the intercultural develop-
ment continuum) were selected to participate in focus groups to obtain a more in-depth under-
standing of students’ perceptions of their community college engagement and intercultural
competence development.

Context and sample

Students enrolled in a large urban community college district in the southwestern region of the
United States were the target population for the study. The district consisted of five independent
campuses and seven satellite centers in an area that spanned 1,400 square miles. When data were
collected for this study, approximately 46,000 credit students were enrolled. Of these students,
approximately 52% of the student body was White, 11% of the students were Black, and 22% were
Hispanic. Asian students made up about 6% of the population, while 8% described themselves as
“other.” Also, at the time of the study, over 1,500 international students were enrolled in the district.
Almost 61% of the students were female. The average age for all students was 24, but this average
 38 R. L. RILEY ET AL.

Table 1. Demographic Profile of Sample, N = 400.

Category n Percent of N
Gender
Female 251 63
Male 149 27
Ethnicity
White 200 50
Hispanic 106 26
Black 39 10
Bicultural/Mixed Race 21 5
Asian 20 5
Middle Eastern 6 2
Indian/Pakistani 4 1
Native American 4 1
Age
18–21 255 64
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 14:36 04 February 2016

22–30 93 23
31–40 31 8
41–50 16 4
51–60 5 1

reflected the ages of 4,678 dual credit students from area high schools. The median age was 29.
Overall, the demographic characteristics of the student body at this community college district
resembled the profile of many urban-suburban United States community colleges (AACC, 2013).
For the quantitative phase of the study, the CSSE and IDI were administered to 400 community
college students in a total of 29 class sections. Class sections represented all five district campuses
and three centers, and they were selected through a process of random assignment using a cluster
sampling scheme. After the sections were selected, instructors in each section were asked for
permission to administer the CCSSE and the IDI on class days one week apart. Sections were
selected at random until a sufficient number to reach the needed sample was obtained. The sample
size of 400 was chosen because it satisfied the number necessary to generalize to the student
population according to at least one commonly used guide by Krejcie and Morgan (1970), as well
as Olejnik’s recommended minimum sample of 384 for correlational analysis with an alpha level of
.05. A demographic profile of the 400 student participants is illustrated in Table 1.
For the qualitative phase of the study, purposeful sampling was used to identify extreme cases
(Miles & Huberman, 1994); that is, students who scored in the highest and lowest quartiles (minus
the top and bottom 5%) on the IDI were then randomly selected to participate in four focus groups
consisting of approximately five students each. Two focus groups were formed with the lowest
scoring students and two groups were formed with the highest scoring students.

Instrumentation
The CCSSE and the IDI both have been psychometrically evaluated and are commonly administered
assessment instruments. In this study, both the CCSSE and the IDI were administered to the 400
randomly selected students, and an interview protocol was developed for use in conducting student
focus group interviews. The interview protocol was developed based on prior literature and the
theoretical frameworks applied in this study.

The CCSSE
The CCSSE was adapted from the NSSE (2014) and shares approximately 70% of its survey items
with the NSSE (Marti, 2004). One of the primary uses of the survey is to benchmark a college’s
performance in important areas of student engagement including active and collaborative learning,
student effort, academic challenge, support for learners, and student-faculty interaction. This is
 COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 39

achieved through a series of items relating to each of these areas. The CCSSE also collects informa-
tion on personal growth, goals, demographics, financial arrangements, and prior education
(Marti, 2004). Most of the items in the CCSSE instrument ask students about the amount of time
they spend in activities that research has shown to be related to desired outcomes of a college
education. These include studying, participation in extracurricular activities, and engaging in aca-
demic discussions (Kuh, 2003).
The five benchmark areas of the CCSSE were informed by factor analytic solutions and were further
reviewed by the CCSSE’s Technical Advisory Panel, applying expert judgment based on “both the
conceptual framework and empirical evidence related to student engagement in undergraduate learning”
(Marti, 2004, p. 14). The instrument also has been tested on multiple groups to ensure that the factor
structure was consistent among major subgroups. Each of the latent factors of the CCSSE benchmarks
were evaluated for internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha comprising (a) active and collaborative
learning (α = .67), (b) student effort (α = .56), (c) academic challenge (α = .80), (d) student-faculty
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 14:36 04 February 2016

interaction (α = .72), and (e) support for learners (α = .76).

The IDI
The IDI is a “50-item, theory-based paper and pencil instrument that assesses the major stages of
intercultural competence as conceptualized in the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity
theory” and “meets rigorous scientific criteria for a valid psychometric instrument” (Bennett &
Hammer, 1998, p. 1). Scores from the IDI are reported as a single number corresponding to one of
the developmental stages of intercultural sensitivity. The single number score was developed in order
for researchers to correlate a person’s intercultural development “with other potentially salient
variables, including age, number of years of foreign language study, living abroad experiences”
(Paige, 2004, p. 484) and to understand how intercultural development might be related to specific
college experiences. Factor analysis established that the resulting items “constituted six discrete
dimensions that corresponded to five of the six DMIS stages: Denial, Defense, Minimization,
Acceptance, and two forms of Adaptation” (Bennett & Hammer, 1998, p. 1). Responses to items
in the six scales of the final IDI obtained alpha levels of .80 or better. The content and construct-
related validity of the IDI also have been addressed in research by Hammer et al. (2003) and
Paige (2004).

Interview protocol development

A focus group protocol was developed to obtain more in-depth insights into community college
students’ perceptions and experiences as well as extend the quantitative findings. Two questions were
presented to each of the four focus groups: (a) What difference has your college experience made in
your development of tolerance and sensitivity in engaging with others who are culturally different
than you in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, or worldview? and (b) What should colleges do to help
students develop the ability to engage effectively with culturally different others?

Data collection
Prior to data collection, informed consent was obtained from the community college district, five
participating individual campuses, and all study participants. First, for the quantitative phase, data
collection consisted of the administration of two instruments (the CCSSE and IDI) to all 400
students who were randomly selected to be part of the sample. Student responses to the two survey
instruments, the CSSE and the IDI, were input into SPSS using identification numbers assigned to
each student. Information from a number of additional CCSSE survey items was also collected,
including the frequency and quality of conversations students had with persons of different races,
religious beliefs, or political opinions, as well as the degree to which the student believed the
college had helped them learn to work effectively with others and to understand people of different
races and ethnicities. Second, for the qualitative phase, four 90-minute focus group interviews were
 40 R. L. RILEY ET AL.

conducted with the 20 consenting students whose scores fell into the top and bottom quartiles of
the CCSE and the IDI. Interviews were recorded and transcribed.

Data analysis
Using SPSS, quantitative analysis was carried out by first conducting a descriptive statistical analysis
to determine normality of distribution and then conducting a Pearson R correlate analysis to
examine relationships between instrument scores from the IDI and CCSSE as well as intercultural
contact and other demographic variables. Prior to running Pearson R correlations on IDI and CCSSE
scores, data first were examined for normal distribution. Pearson R was also used to determine effect
sizes.
Qualitative analysis of focus group interview transcripts was conducted analyzed using process
coding which focuses on searching for ongoing action, interaction, or emotion in response to
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 14:36 04 February 2016

situations (Charmaz, 2006). Transcripts were coded to identify common themes, patterns, relation-
ships, deviations, and others as recommended by Berkowitz (1997) and applied to focus group
interview analysis (Catterall & McClaran, 1997; Morgan, 1997). Coded transcripts then were
reviewed by a focus group expert to enhance intercoder credibility.

Results
Overall, results from both phases of the study supported much of the existing research on student
engagement and suggested that community college students’ engagement in various quality class-
room practices (e.g., group work), as well as high impact campus activities might contribute to the
development of intercultural competence. Limitations related to the need to further examine the
actual extent of student engagement’s impact on intercultural competence, to determine which
variables seem to predict best the development of intercultural competence, and to asses students’
levels of intercultural competence before engaging in classroom and campus activities as more
interculturally competent students might have higher levels of student engagement. However,
correlational research and qualitative inquiry were the focus of this exploratory study and were
designed to provide a basis for further research examining students’ intercultural competence and
community engagement in community colleges.

Quantitative results
In reference to research question one, results indicated positively correlated relationships between
the IDI, the CCSSE factors, and intercultural contact. All correlations were found to be statistically
significant at the p < .01 level except for support for learners, which was significant at the p < .05
level. In Table 2, these correlations with the IDI scores are illustrated from higher to lower. Effect
sizes varied from 14% (support for learners with r = 12) to 60% (active and collaborative learning

Table 2. Correlation of IDI, CCSSE Benchmarks, and Intercultural Contact (N = 400).

Variable IDI SE ACL AC SFI SL IC
IDI
SE .80**
ACL .81** .78**
AC .72** .77** .72**
SFI .50** .55** .57** .53**
SL .12* .28** .23** .35** .27**
IC .72** .72** .72** .71** .50 ** .31**
**Statistically significant at p < .01. * Statistically significant at p < .05.
Note. SE = Student Effort, ACL = Active and Collaborative Learning, AC = Academic Challenge, SFI = Student Faculty Interaction,
SL = Support for Learners, IC = Intercultural Contact
 COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 41

with r = .81). This indicated that the IDI shared the least amount of variance with the student
learning factor of the CCSSE, whereas the most amount of variance was shared with the CCSSE
factors of active and collaborative learning, student effort, academic challenge, and student-faculty
interaction.
The intercultural contact factor also shared a large amount of variance with both the CSSEE
factors and the IDI, except with the support for learners factor. Essentially, as these college students
in the sample were more engaged, as measured by the CSSEE, they demonstrated higher scores on
the IDI. This was particularly apparent in the areas of student effort, active and collaborative
learning, and academic challenge. Student-faculty interaction also was positively correlated to IDI
scores at r = .50. Intercultural contact also was highly positively correlated with most factors on the
CCSSE. It is important to note that, although correlations between the CCSSE and IDI do not
insinuate causation, these results suggest that the use of both instruments might provide college
administrators with clues as to which aspects of college engagement might better relate to students’
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 14:36 04 February 2016

intercultural competence development. The qualitative findings below suggest further insights into
how community college students perceive that their engagement relates to intercultural competence
development.

Qualitative results
Some differences were observed between the two focus groups whose participants scored in the top
quartile of the IDI and the two groups that consisted of the bottom quartile. Several students in the
low-scoring focus group spoke of being less integrated with other students who were culturally
different in high school and, therefore, felt that their college experiences gave them more opportu-
nities to interact with diverse people. Another observation of the students in the low-scoring group
was how they tended to describe differences concretely, for example, “Everyone has their own beliefs
and ways of doing things.” And, although they did not deny differences, they expressed that they felt
more comfortable retreating to interactions with their own cultural group when differences were
highlighted.
By contrast, the high-scoring focus group participants indicated a willingness to engage with
others across cultural differences, such as: “You have to compromise and think critically but you
have to feel everybody’s point of view, you know, take their point of view, not just your own.”
Overall, students with higher IDI scores described cross-cultural engagement experiences in more
complex ways, which seemed to reflect an ability to take multiple perspectives. Nevertheless, few
major differences were observed between the focus groups. In general, students believed that their
community college experiences had an impact on their development of intercultural competence.
Six primary themes were interpreted in analyzing focus group data that related to students’
descriptions of college influences on their intercultural competence and what colleges should do to
promote intercultural competence. In particular, based on students’ responses, what happens in the
community college classroom really matters. Themes included (a) value of exposure to diverse
faculty and other students, (b) importance of intentional collaborative learning (group work) in
the classroom between students representing diverse groups, (c) courses and course content focused
on intercultural awareness and responsiveness, (d) campus cultural events, (e) international study
program options, and (f) campus-organized community engagement and service learning projects.
In general, several focus group participants emphasized the importance of active and collaborative
learning in diverse classrooms and the campus environment as crucial to their development of
intercultural competence, namely because many students had few opportunities to interact closely
with people from other cultures outside the community college setting. For example, one student
expressed:
 42 R. L. RILEY ET AL.

When we do group work, you can get to know other people that might be different from you more. You spend
more time with them and get to know what they feel like, what they like, and what they don’t like even though
they might be of another culture.

Classroom activities over campus-based activities were stressed as particularly important because
community college students frequently spend less time on campus outside of attending class than do
students at four-year universities. Classrooms were viewed as ideal places where instructors could
provide opportunities for engagement around intercultural issues. Student participants also empha-
sized the importance of having exposure to racially and ethnically diverse faculty members. A
student noted:
Professors usually aren’t as diverse as the students but one thing that has always been a changing experience for
me is when I hear about how people overcame things…whenever I’ve had culturally diverse professors, they
have personal experiences they bring into the mix with their teaching and I learn a lot from that. And that
affects my view toward that culture.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 14:36 04 February 2016

Every focus group discussed the value of international fairs and other types of campus cultural
events, as well as the importance of addressing an array of cultures and nationalities in course
content. For example, one student mentioned learning about traditional African American music
and music literature, and another was inspired about cultural differences in communication
styles in speech class. Both opportunities to travel abroad and local community service were
viewed as viable options for enhancing students’ experiences with privilege, raising awareness,
and developing empathy for culturally different others.

Implications and recommendations for practice

A major implication from this study relates to the value of using tested instruments like the CCSSE
and the IDI to measure student engagement and intercultural competence in community college
settings. When used together, these assessments might give administrators and faculty members
additional clues about need areas for both students, in the form of classroom activities that might
enhance intercultural competence, and institutions, by providing clues for continuing to develop
engagement-focused campuses. Several implications and recommendations are apparent in the
qualitative findings of this study as follows.

Encouragement of intercultural interaction and service learning in the classroom

Community colleges enroll about half of all college students in the United States (AACC, 2013) and
enrollments continue to increase. Because community college students typically are nontraditional
college students, work full time, care for families, and commute to campus, they rarely spend time on
campus aside from attending classes, which tends to limit their opportunities to engage in campus
activities. Therefore, students’ engagement in activities that might lead to their intercultural devel-
opment might best be integrated into the classroom. In this study, students reported that they most
valued classroom group work that was structured to encourage group work and intercultural
interaction. These findings support those of McClenney (2007) and the value of “high impact”
activities, in general, as indicated in the extant research (McCormick et al., 2013, p. 54).
Classroom instructors consistently should seek ways to group students differently for collabora-
tive interaction on projects and in-class discussions. If instructors do not intentionally integrate
students and encourage different groupings and seating arrangements, students will tend to stay
within their comfort zone and not have opportunities to get to know others who might be culturally
different from them. Another strategy relates to the integration of culturally related classroom
content through the use of technology. Even an anatomy professor can find ways to expose students
to other cultures and nations through technology and comparative education by seeking ways to
 COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 43

have students interact with others outside the classroom through the Internet, video streaming, and
social media.
Service learning is another classroom strategy for connecting students with the community
through experiential learning opportunities and developing intercultural competence (Chang
et al., 2004; Westrick, 2004) and is considered a high impact student engagement activity
(McCormick et al., 2013). However, service-learning activities must be planned out by classroom
instructors and fit into course content and objectives. For many students, service learning might
provide their only venue for interacting with others from other cultures. Moreover, college-initiated
service learning programs have the added benefit of linking the college to its community in ways that
lead to positive public relations and support recruitment efforts.

Diverse faculty and student body

Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 14:36 04 February 2016

Participants from this study emphasized the importance of community colleges having a diverse
faculty and student body. Many institutions of higher education have noted challenges in recruiting
and retaining a diverse faculty. Proactive and strategic recruiting plans are required to do this.
Recruitment efforts should involve partnering with community-based organizations and visiting
predominately Hispanic serving institutions and historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs)
to promote opportunities for potential career opportunities for masters and doctoral students in
community colleges.
Overall, student populations at United States community colleges tend to reflect greater diversity
than four-year institutions (AACC, 2013). However, many colleges are homogeneous in their
student population, as they tend to reflect the race or ethnicity of the students who reside in a
particular college area or community. In these cases, it might be valuable for colleges within a district
to partner and arrange joint activities to give students more opportunities to interact with others.
Exchange opportunities or programs between area colleges might also benefit students from more
homogeneous campuses. Again, technology and service learning can provide means for interacting
with others from diverse cultures outside of the campus setting. Prior research also supports the
value of college student contact with diverse faculty and students (Chang et al., 2004;
Hurtado, 2005).

College-sponsored international events and international exchange

Student participants in this study stated that they valued in-college sponsored activities that
showcased different national cultures from around the world. International fair events that involved
typical foods, dance, history, and geography from different countries, particularly those represented
by students on a campus, were described. While some scholars argue that multicultural fairs only
provide a tourist approach to cultural immersion, the results of this study suggest that it is favorable
to offering nothing at all because students report that these events do increase their awareness and
knowledge about other countries and cultures. The impact of these events can be enhanced with
additional course-related activities that lead to deeper learning and critical thinking and integrate
global education.
Interestingly, the need to develop more international exchange opportunities also were mentioned
by students as one way that community colleges could engage students in ways that would develop
intercultural competence. The value of internationalization in community colleges also has been
cited by community college scholars (see Emert & Pearson, 2007; Green, 2007; Raby &
Valeau, 2007). This seems challenging given that often community students are full-time workers
and tend to spend little time on campus outside of attending classes. Exchange programs are also
expensive and involve complicated logistics such as visas and travel and lodging arrangements.
Nonetheless, community college administrators are encouraged to explore best practices in interna-
tional exchange to determine the interest and feasibility of such programs on their campuses.
 44 R. L. RILEY ET AL.

Conclusion
This study explored the relationship between student engagement and intercultural competence, as
well as students’ perceptions of their community college engagement experiences and intercultural
competence. This research was significant in providing community college leaders and faculty with
insights into ways that intercultural competence might be developed in the community college
setting through student engagement. Overall, this research supports findings of previous studies in
higher education that examined the cognitive benefits of interacting in diverse environments (see
Chang et al., 2004; Gurin et al., 2002; Hurtado, 2005; Zhao, 2002). Fostering students’ intercultural
competence through student engagement appears fundamental to globalizing the community college
and preparing students to function effectively and appropriately in a culturally diverse world.
Increasingly, community colleges are identifying language acquisition, critical and creative thinking,
and knowledge of other cultures and countries among the competencies students must master to
compete in a global environment (Winkle-Wagner & Locks, 2014). As enrollment in community
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 14:36 04 February 2016

colleges continues to explode, it is clear that community colleges have a significant role to play in
preparing students to function effectively in a culturally diverse world by enhancing their inter-
cultural competence through classroom and campus engagement.

References
American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). (2013). Community college enrollment. Retrieved from http://
www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Trends/Pages/enrollment.aspx
American Council on International Intercultural Education. (1996, November). Educating for the global community: A
framework for community colleges. Proceedings from conference convened at Airlie Center, Warrenton, VA.
Alfred, R., Ewell, P., Hudgkins, J., & McClenney, K. (2007). Core indicators of effectiveness for community colleges
(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Community College Press, American Association of Community Colleges.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student
Development, 40(5), 518–529. (Originally published 1984)
Bennett, M. J. (1993). Toward ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige
(Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (2nd ed., pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Bennett, M. J., & Hammer, M. R. (1998). The roadmap to intercultural competence using the IDI. Retrieved from http://
idiinventory.com/
Berkowitz, S. (1997). Using qualitative and mixed methods approaches. In R. Reviere, S. Berkowitz, C. C. Carter, & C.
Graves-Ferguson, (Eds.), Needs assessment: A creative and practical guide for social scientists. Washington, D.C.:
Taylor & Francis.
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Bernal, E. M., Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1998, November). Collaborative learning:
Preferences, gains in cognitive and affective outcomes, and openness to diversity among college students. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami, FL.
Catterall, M., & McClaran, P. (1997). Focus group data and qualitative analysis programs: Coding the moving picture
as well as snapshots. Sociological Research Online, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/6.html
Chang, M. J., Astin, A. W., & Kim, D. (2004). Cross-racial interaction among undergraduates: Some consequences,
causes, and patterns. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), 529–553.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). (2005). Benchmarking the CCSSE. Retrieved from http://
www.ccsse.org/survey/bench_active.cfm
Deardorff, D. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internatio-
nalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266.
Derry, S. J. (1996). Cognitive schema theory in the constructivist debate. Educational Psychologist, 31(3), 163–174.
Endicott, L., Bock, T., & Navarez, D. (2002, April). Learning processes at the intersection of ethical and intercultural
education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
LA.
Emert, H. A., & Pearson, D. L. (2007). Expanding the vision of international education: Collaboration, assessment, and
intercultural development. In E. J. Valeau & R. L. Raby (Eds.), International reform efforts and challenges in
community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 138 (pp. 67–75). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
 COMMUNITY COLLEGE JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 45

Fantini, A. E. (2000). A central concern: Developing intercultural competence (Report of the Intercultural
Communicative Competence Task Force). Brattleboro, VT: World Learning.
Green, M. F. (2007). Community college international education: Looking back to forecast the future. In E. J. Valeau &
R. L. Raby (Eds.), International reform efforts and challenges in community colleges. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 138 (pp. 15–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gurin, P. Y., Dey, E. L., Gurin, G., & Hurtado, S. (2003). How does racial/ethnic diversity promote education? The
Western Journal of Black Studies, 27(1), 20–29.
Gurin, P. Y., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on
educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–366.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural competence: The intercultural
development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 421–443.
Hurtado, S. (2005). The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations research. Journal of Social Issues, 61(3),
595–610.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A paradigm whose time has come. Educational
Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 14:36 04 February 2016

Measurement, 30, 607–610.

Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student
Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10–17.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24–33.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In R. M.
Gonyea & G. D. Kuh (Eds.), Using NSSE in institutional research, New directions for Institutional Research, 141 (pp.
5–20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle:
Research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(5). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance educational
effectiveness: The inventory for student engagement and success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marti, C. N. (2004). Overview of the CCSSE instrument and psychometric properties. Retrieved from http://www.pvc.
maricopa.edu/sites/default/files/ie/ccsse/psychometrics.pdf
McClenney, K. M. (2007). Research update: The Community College Survey of Student Engagement. Community
College Review, 35(2), 137–146.
McCormick, A. C., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2013). Student engagement: Bridging research and practice to improve
the quality of undergraduate education. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research
(pp. 47–91). New York, NY: Springer.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2014). Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/
Nishida, H. (1999). A cognitive approach to intercultural communication based on schema theory. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(5), 753–777.
Paige, M. (2004). Instrumentation in intercultural training. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.),
Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 85–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21st century: Meeting new challenges. The
Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 151–165.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Pope, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (1997). Student affairs core competence: Integrating multicultural awareness, knowledge,
and skills. Journal of College Student Development, 38(3), 266–277.
Raby, R., & Valeau, E. J. (2007). Community college international education: Looking back to forecast the future. In E.
J. Valeau & R. L. Raby (Eds.), International reform efforts and challenges in community colleges. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 138 (pp. 5–14. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative
approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thornton, L. J., II, & McEntee, M. E. (1995). Learner centered schools as a mindset, and the connection with
mindfulness and multiculturalism. Theory Into Practice, 34(4), 250–257.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Westrick, J. (2004). The influence of service learning on intercultural sensitivity. Journal of Research in International
Education, 3(3), 277–299.
Winkle-Wagner, R., & Locks, A. M. (2014). Diversity and inclusion on campus: Supporting racially and ethnically
underrepresented students. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
 46 R. L. RILEY ET AL.

Wiseman, R. L., & Koester, J. (Eds.) (1993). Intercultural communication competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and unique contribution of
involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding college student success. Journal of College Student
Development, 50(4), 407–428.
Zhao, C. M. (2002). Intercultural competence: A quantitative study of the significance of intercultural competence and
the influence of college experiences on students’ intercultural competence development. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 63(06), 2165. (UMI No. 3056959)
Zhao, C. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher
Education, 45(2), 115–138.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 14:36 04 February 2016