Beyond Exposure: Toward a Developmental Understanding of Intercultural Competency in International Education

Beyond Exposure: Toward a Developmental Understanding of Intercultural Competency in International Education

By: Stephanie Mikulasek & April Mattix Foster

Keywords: intercultural competency, intercultural development, Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS), Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), immersion programs, program design, facilitator competence, structured reflection

Key Issue: The Promise and Questions of Intercultural Competency Development

Intercultural competency, defined as the capacity to communicate and interact effectively and appropriately across cultural differences (Deardorff, 2006), has become a central aim of contemporary international education. Study abroad enrollments, faculty-led immersion programs, and internationalization initiatives have proliferated across higher education over the past two decades, grounded in the premise that direct engagement with cultural difference cultivates the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for effective cross-cultural interaction (Bennett, 1993; Cushner, 2011; Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). Despite this widespread emphasis, outcomes related to intercultural competency development remain inconsistent and uneven across programs and participants.

This brief synthesizes current scholarship on intercultural competency theories and their application to immersion-based education, arguing that the field has made significant progress in defining and measuring IC, but has insufficiently theorized the mechanisms through which IC development occurs. The research consistently identifies structured reflection, intentional program design, and facilitator competence as essential conditions for growth, and yet the question of how individuals navigate cultural dissonance, and why identical programs produce divergent outcomes, remains under-examined. Addressing this gap is critical for practitioners, program designers, and policymakers who seek to move beyond the assumption that cultural exposure alone produces intercultural growth.

Background: Defining and Measuring Intercultural Competence

Scholars broadly agree that intercultural competency (IC) is multidimensional, developmental, and relational, encompassing dispositions, knowledge, and skills that evolve through sustained engagement with cultural difference. Deardorff’s (2006) widely cited process model articulates three interrelated domains - attitudes (respect, openness, curiosity), knowledge (including cultural self-awareness and sociolinguistic understanding), and skills (such as observing, interpreting, evaluating, and relating) - arranged in a developmental progression from individual orientations toward internal and external behavioral outcomes. Importantly, the model underscores that these elements are mutually reinforcing and unfold over time rather than being acquired in isolation.

Other scholars reinforce this developmental framing. Cushner (2011) emphasizes adaptability across diverse cultural contexts, arguing that IC is less about expertise in any single culture than about the capacity to function effectively amid complexity and difference. Similarly, Major, Munday, and Winslade (2020) conceptualize IC as an ongoing learning process, facilitated through structured and critical reflection. Across these perspectives, a clear consensus emerges. Intercultural competency is not a fixed trait nor technical skill set, but rather a dynamic capacity that must be intentionally cultivated over time.

Bennett’s (1986, 1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) provides the field’s most influential theoretical framework for understanding how individuals experience and interpret cultural difference. The DMIS posits that intercultural development proceeds through qualitatively distinct orientations, moving from ethnocentric worldviews - Denial, Polarization, and Minimization - toward ethnorelative orientations of Acceptance and Adaptation. Individuals operating from ethnocentric orientations tend to overlook cultural differences, judge them through a binary “us versus them” lens, or acknowledge differences while minimizing their significance. In contrast, individuals at Acceptance and Adaptation demonstrate an intercultural mindset, characterized by curiosity, perspective-taking, and the ability to shift behavior appropriately across cultural contexts (Bennett, 1993; Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003).

The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI), developed by Hammer (2011), translates the DMIS into a widely used empirical assessment tool. Validated across numerous cultural and educational contexts, the IDI enables institutions to assess individuals’ and groups’ developmental orientations along the DMIS continuum. Empirical findings using the IDI have consistently revealed a sobering pattern: the vast majority of assessed populations cluster at Minimization. Mahon’s (2006) study of 155 midwestern teachers found that over 60% scored at Minimization, with fewer than 2.5% reaching ethnorelative orientations. Demographic analysis revealed that age, ethnicity, and international travel experience were significantly associated with higher intercultural sensitivity, while younger and less-traveled teachers showed a pronounced tendency to minimize cultural differences, a finding with direct implications for those facilitating intercultural learning in schools and immersion programs.

While assessment frameworks such as the IDI provide valuable diagnostic insight, they also reveal a critical limitation in the field. These tools effectively measure where individuals are developmentally but offer limited explanation of how development occurs. In other words, what are the mechanisms through which individuals move from one orientation to another? As Mitchell and Paras (2018) note, although the field has demonstrated IC can be developed, it lacks a clear understanding of the “engine” that drives intercultural transformation at the individual level. Garrett-Rucks (2014) further highlights this concern by identifying discrepancies between outcomes generated by Bennett’s DMIS and Byram’s (1997) IC framework when applied to the same participants, raising questions about what different instruments capture and whether any single model fully reflects the complexity of intercultural development.

These critiques point to a central challenge for research and practice. While the field has made significant progress in defining and measuring intercultural competency, it has yet to fully explain the developmental processes through which individuals respond to cultural difference, navigate dissonance, and transform meaning-making. It is this gap that has direct implications for immersion-based education, where exposure alone is often assumed to produce growth, despite evidence that outcomes vary widely among participants.

Evidence: What Makes Immersion Work More or Less Successful?

Research on immersion programs consistently identifies intentional design as the critical differentiator between programs that catalyze IC growth and those that do not. Cushner (2009, 2011) emphasizes that coursework alone will not develop intercultural competency; rather, programs must incorporate structured reflection, facilitate encounters with difference, and provide scaffolding appropriate to participants’ developmental readiness. Santoro’s (2014) case studies of Australian pre-service teachers demonstrated that programs lacking intentional structure, adequate reflection time, and appropriate facilitation can reinforce stereotypes and promote cultural tourism rather than genuine engagement. The implication is that immersion provides a catalyst for transformation, but reflection provides the mechanism through which dissonance becomes growth (Che, Spearman, & Manizade, 2009; Smolcic & Katunich, 2017).

Dunn, Dotson, Cross, Kesner, and Lundahl’s (2014) comparative study of immersion experiences in Sweden and France illustrates this dynamic. The authors identified three essential factors for IC development: structured and relevant assignments with intentional opportunities for reflection (particularly instructor-facilitated, diversity-themed discussions); hands-on experiential activities connecting theory to practice; and peer community supporting personal growth. In the France program, substantial instructor engagement led to meaningful advancement in self-examination, while insufficient engagement in the Sweden program produced only superficial awareness. The quality of facilitation, not the fact of cultural exposure, determined outcomes.

A review of 29 case studies from Deardorff and Arasaratnam-Smith’s (2017) edited volume on IC in higher education reveals consistent patterns across diverse international contexts. Programs that demonstrated the strongest IC outcomes shared several characteristics: integration of formative and summative assessment, explicit instruction in what reflection means and why it matters, facilitator development alongside student development, and program designs that moved from personal experience to abstract conceptualization to active experimentation. Conversely, programs that treated IC as an automatic byproduct of cultural contact, relied exclusively on student self-reports, or neglected facilitator preparation showed limited or inconsistent results. Multiple case studies noted that students consistently overestimated their own intercultural competence, a finding that underscores the importance of validated assessment tools and the risks of relying on self-perception alone.

Further, the role of facilitators and program leaders emerges as a critical yet under-examined variable. Dimitrov, Dawson, Olsen, and Meadows (2014) found that graduate teaching development programs enhanced with intercultural communication components produced measurable gains in participants’ ability to adapt communication styles across cultural contexts. Critically, these gains were attributed not to cultural contact itself but to the intentional structuring of reflective practice by skilled facilitators. Parkhouse, Tichnor-Wagner, Cain, and Glazier (2016) found that teachers often lack access to IC training in their professional development, a systemic gap that limits the field’s capacity to prepare the very individuals tasked with facilitating intercultural learning. When facilitators themselves operate from monocultural mindsets, as Mahon’s (2006) data suggest is the norm, the programs they lead cannot reliably produce the transformative outcomes they intend. Or said simply, teachers cannot teach what they don’t know (Sadruddin & Wahab, 2013; Santoro, 2014; Schneider, 2003).

Emerging research also expands the conception of what “immersion” might entail. McCloskey (2012) demonstrated that carefully designed online experiences can generate IC outcomes comparable to in-person immersion when they provide authentic cultural contact, active reflection, and facilitation by a highly competent instructor. Myers and Rivero (2020) found that simulations produced marked increases in systemic understanding of global issues among pre-service teachers. Parkhouse and colleagues (2016) challenged the assumption that international travel is necessary for IC development, suggesting that an accumulation of domestic experiences with diversity can also cultivate intercultural perspectives. These findings suggest that the active ingredients of IC development, namely dissonance, reflection, and facilitated meaning-making, are not inherently tied to geographic displacement but to the quality of encounter and the scaffolding that surrounds it.

Implications and Recommendations

The evidence synthesized in this brief points to several interconnected implications for program design, facilitator preparation, and future research in international education. Taken together, these findings underscore a central conclusion: intercultural competency does not develop automatically through exposure alone, but through intentional, developmentally informed educational practice.

Program Design: Move Beyond Exposure to Intentional Pedagogy

Across studies, the evidence is consistent: cultural exposure without intentional pedagogical structure is insufficient for developing intercultural competency and may, in some cases, be counterproductive. Immersion programs must embed structured reflection as a core design element rather than treating it as an ancillary or optional activity. This requires explicitly teaching participants what reflective practice entails, sequencing encounters with cultural difference to increase in complexity over time and providing facilitated dialogue that both surfaces and challenges assumptions rather than reinforcing existing perceptions and worldviews.

Assessment practices should reflect this intentionality. Reliance on self-report measures alone risks masking stagnation or even regression in intercultural development. Instead, programs should combine direct and indirect evidence, integrating validated instruments such as the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) with qualitative inquiry into participants' lived experiences. Multi-method assessment not only strengthens accountability but can also provide actionable feedback to improve program design and implementation.

Facilitator Preparation: Treat Developmental Readiness as a Prerequisite

The evidence also highlights a critical, and often overlooked, policy challenge: the intercultural competency and developmental readiness of those who design and lead immersion experiences. Research indicating that faculty and teachers tend to cluster at Minimization (Mahon, 2006) while simultaneously overestimating their own intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2006). When facilitators themselves operate from monocultural meaning-making frameworks, they are unlikely to recognize cultural complexity or support participants in navigating dissonance productively. As a result, facilitator development should be treated as a prerequisite, not an optional supplement, to intercultural programming. Institutions and sponsoring organizations should invest in sustained professional development that enables facilitators to assess their own developmental orientations, build facilitative skills, and learn how to scaffold intercultural learning across diverse participant populations.

Future Research: Shift From Outcomes to Mechanisms

Finally, there is a pressing need for future research is theoretical integration. The intercultural competency field has developed robust frameworks for defining IC and tools for measuring developmental position, yet it has not sufficiently explained the mechanisms through which development occurs. The persistent questions remain: Why do identical immersion experiences produce growth in some participants and regression in others? What determines whether individuals respond to cultural dissonance with curiosity, defensiveness, or withdrawal? Addressing these questions requires drawing more deliberately on adjacent theoretical traditions, such as adult development theory and transformative learning theory, to examine how individuals’ existing meaning-making capacities shape their responses to intercultural encounters. Bennett’s DMIS provides a valuable developmental map, but the field now needs complementary frameworks that illuminate the process of movement between stages. Such integration is essential for designing programs that are both developmentally appropriate and adaptable to learner needs.

Conclusion

In an era marked by rising global polarization, geopolitical conflict, and yet unprecedented interconnectedness, the capacity to navigate cultural difference with empathy, curiosity, and skill is no longer merely an educational aspiration, it is a social imperative. The research reviewed here demonstrates that intercultural competency can be cultivated, through programs that treat it as a developmental process requiring intentional design, skilled facilitation, and sustained reflective engagement. For policymakers, educators, and institutional leaders, the challenge is clear: move beyond exposure toward genuine transformation.

Biographies

Stephanie Mikulasek is the founder and CEO of The ServantEDGE, a leadership development company dedicated to emboldening women to move from invisible to visible. A former U.S. Diplomat with experience across 60+ countries, Stephanie is an award-winning author, a Georgetown certified PCC coach, certified mindfulness meditation teacher, keynote speaker, and PhD Candidate at George Mason University researching how dissonance may develop transformational leaders, particularly during international immersive experiences.

April Mattix Foster is a Professor at George Mason University and Co-Director of the Center for International Education, where she teaches in the TESOL and World Languages, Elementary, and Literacy programs. A former international school educator, April brings a global perspective to her work in teacher preparation and educational leadership. She is an award-winning scholar whose research focuses on children’s literature, intercultural competence, and anti-racist education, with numerous publications and presentations at national and international conferences. April holds a PhD in Literacy, Language, and Culture from the University of Pittsburgh and is deeply committed to preparing educators to teach for equity, global understanding, and meaningful engagement.

References