Article Evaluation

THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERCULTURAL

COMMUNICATION IN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

Mary Hinchcliff-Pelias

Associate Professor of Speech Communication

Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

Norman S. Greer

Associate Professor of Speech Communication Eastern Illinois University

International education should, by defi nition, assume intercultural communication interactions. If this is not the case, then what is the point? Why would those who study internationally place themselves in an educational environment that does not expect and afford opportunities for interaction with persons from culturally different backgrounds? From the standpoint of intercultural communication educators, we fi nd the idea of isolation of international students from their host national counterparts and other international students philosophically and pedagogically untenable.

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND PERCEIVED DIFFERENCE

Intercultural communication involves the interaction of persons from cultural communities that are different. The perception of difference is often a defi ning component of intercultural communication (Brislin, 1994; Dodd, 1998; Gudykunst, 1988; Gudykunst & Kim, 1992). Brislin (1994) articulated some of these differences:

…the others possess many qualities summarized by the word different. The others speak various languages, have different skin colors, possess an array of attitudes toward important aspects of life such as work and recreation, eat different foods, and so forth. (p. 25)

Gudykunst and Kim (1992) used the metaphor of the “stranger” to refer to persons perceived as culturally different from ourselves. They stated that “(t)he term stranger is somewhat ambiguous in that it is often used to refer to aliens, intruders, foreigners, outsiders, newcomers, and immigrants, as well as any person who is unknown and unfamiliar” (p. 19). In intercultural interactions, these perceived differences may be suffi cient to make the participants uncomfortable, embarrassed, fearful and/or unwilling to engage in such communication.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT POPULATIONS

According to recent fi gures reported by the Institute of International Education (IIE) (2003), during the period of 2002-2003, more than 586,000 international students were studying in the U.S. The IIE places the number of U.S. students studying overseas during 20012002 at a little over 160,000. Additionally, numerous other students from many nations sojourn internationally to educational institutions throughout the world. Thus, in recent years, upwards of three-quarters of a million students have been in the position to interact with other international students and host nationals in intercultural contexts. But many of these international sojourners do not interact or have limited interactions with culturally different others. The reasons for the lack of social exchange are undoubtedly many, including such factors as the aforementioned perceptions attendant to viewing the culturally different as a “stranger,” as well as lack of networking opportunities within the campus/local community, language barriers, social skills, time constraints, and separation/isolation in residential facilities.

Individual personality traits as well as other psychological factors may also work against international students seeking out intercultural interactions. Many international students experience culture shock, which may preclude or severely limit interactions with culturally different others. Oberg (1960), the scholar credited with coining the term “cultural shock,” viewed it as a generalized trauma affecting individuals when placed in a new and unfamiliar culture. The stress and anxieties associated with culture shock are the result of persons losing those things familiar to them for their day-to-day social interactions, such as rules associated with language interaction (verbal and nonverbal) and cultural conventions and norms (Garza-Guerrero, 1974; Klineberg & Hull, 1979; Oberg). In essence, an individual’s entire way of understanding her/his world may be turned on end. The effects of culture shock can be lingering and result in further isolation of international students from their host culture peers. Additionally, limited social interactions, especially those between international students and their host national counterparts, may well refl ect understandings from both sides regarding how international students are perceived.

Negative Perceptions of International Students

Research specifi cally focused on international students enrolled at colleges and universities in the U.S. provides evidence that many host nationals hold negative perceptions of international students as a group. Spencer-Rogers & McGovern (2002) explained:

…a prevalent view exists of foreign students as outsiders who are culturally maladjusted, naive, and confused. They are seen as psychologically unbalanced individuals who suffer from a “foreign student syndrome,” a controversial condition characterized by a disheveled appearance, a passive and withdrawn interpersonal style, and a multitude of psychosomatic ailments. (p. 613)

Negative Intercultural Encounters

Intercultural interactions have been characterized as producing anxiety (Ekachai, Hinchcliff-Pelias, & Greer, 1998; Stephan & Stephan, 1985), uncertainty and/or diffi culty in interpreting interlocuters’ intentions (Chen, 2002; Gudykunst, 1988; Gudykunst & Kim, 1992), frustration (Ekachai, Hinchcliff-Pelias, & Greer; Hinchcliff-Pelias, 2003), and hurt and fear (Bresnahan & Cai, 2000; Hinchcliff-Pelias). Most likely, contributing to these unsatisfactory interactions are negative attributions ascribed to international students by host national peers and instructors, including descriptors of these students as withdrawn, insular, and socially inhibited (Spencer-Rogers, 2001) and educationally inadequate and/or behaviorally inappropriate in classroom situations (Lind, 2002; Mestenhauser, 1983). It is not surprising, then to fi nd that international students often limit their social interactions with host nationals and spend more time with co-nationals (Paige, 1990, Pedersen, 1991; Rajapaksa & Dundes, 2002-2003; Spencer-Rogers).

Positive Outcomes of International Interactions

Of course, not all intercultural interactions between international students and host nationals (and with other international students) have negative outcomes. Although the participants may report awkwardness and misunderstandings in their encounters, the benefi ts of such interactions may be viewed as balancing or exceeding the costs. Scott’s (1998) study of a group of Thai exchange students found that they experienced signifi cant personal growth in terms of self-confi dence and enhanced independence as a result of their stay with host families in the U.S. Hinchcliff-Pelias (2003) reported that students believed they gained important knowledge about others’ cultural perspectives and developed self-effi cacy related to their communication skills as a result of their intercultural interactions. In their study of university students’ intercultural interactions, Ekachai, Hinchcliff-Pelias & Greer (1998) found that some students confronted and re-assessed their negative stereotypes of culturally different others as a result of those interactions. Additionally, many studies have noted the connection between social networks (including co-nationals, other international students, and host nationals) in international students’ successful adaptation and adjustment to their new cultural environments (Bresnahan & Cai, 2000; Heikinheimo & Shute, 1986; Kim, 1994; Pedersen, 1991; Rajapaksa & Dundes, 20022003; Zimmerman, 1995).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

As intercultural communication educators, we want to reconcile our belief that intercultural communication interaction is an essential element in the education of students who study internationally with our recognition that this form of communication interaction may be a daunting and diffi cult undertaking. Thus, we conducted the present study to increase our understanding of contributing factors that may inform international students’ hesitancy to engage in intercultural interactions. We posed the following research questions:

RQ1: How do international students characterize their reluctance to engage in intercultural communication interactions?

RQ2: What barriers do international students perceive for effective intercultural communication interactions?

RQ3: What do international students believe might be done to facilitate effective intercultural communication interactions?

We acknowledge that many intercultural interactions result in positive outcomes; however, we limited our focus to factors that preclude effective or satisfying encounters between culturally different others in order to address the research questions for this study. For this research we defi ned “international students” as those individuals who study in nations other than their self-identifi ed permanent nation of residence. Additionally, we defi ned “intercultural interactions/encounters” to specify those which the study participants characterized as communications with persons whom they perceived as culturally different from themselves.

Data Collection and Analysis

We collected data for this study though extensive interviews, using focus groups (Morgan, 1993; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990; Vaughn, Schumm & Sinagub, 1996), one-to-one interviews (Patton, 1990), and collection of students’ written personal narratives. The fi rst author conducted individual interviews and collected written narratives from students studying internationally at two European universities, in France and in Spain. The focus group interviews were conducted by both authors and a research assistant at a Midwestern U.S. university. Data were analyzed through content analysis (Holsti, 1969) of dominant manifest and emergent themes.

Study Participants

We collected information from 64 students from 20 nations. The students were pursuing a variety of academic majors. The students, enrolled in undergraduate and master’s degree programs at their respective universities at the time of the interviews, were from the following nations: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Finland, Germany, Haiti, India, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Moldova, Morocco, Puerto Rico, Republic of China, Spain, Sri Lanka, Turkey, United States, and Venezuela.

We did not expect nor do we present the international students’ responses reported in this study to be representative of their national cultures. However, we consider these international students to be representative of a contemporary “international student” culture, comprised as it is of a group of people engaged in education in university cultural environments, learning alongside others whose national cultures are different from their own. This conceptualization of an international student culture aligns well with Hofstede’s (2001) observation regarding what constitutes a culture:

The word culture is usually reserved for societies (operationalized as nations or as ethnic or regional groups within or across nations). Basically, the word can be applied to any human collectivity or category: an organization, a profession, an age group, an entire gender, or a family. (p. 10)

The results of the interviews with these 64 international students are presented in the following section.

RESULTS

RQ1: Reluctance to Engage in Intercultural Communication

Our fi rst research question focused on international students’ characterizations of their hesitancy to engage in intercultural communication interactions. Consistent with previous research fi ndings, the international students viewed their interactions as having positive and negative outcomes, oftentimes as a result of the same encounter. However, their reasons for not seeking out further intercultural interactions focus on the negative outcomes they had experienced.

Every one of the 64 students interviewed articulated one or more negative experiences related to their past and present intercultural interactions. Many of the students had refl ected on their negative experiences and had attempted to understand the reasons for the problems they encountered. The students’ sense-making related to their negative intercultural experiences clustered around the themes of self inadequacies, others’ inadequacies, and contextual constraints.

Self inadequacies. The students’ perceptions of self inadequacies surfaced in self attributions regarding their personal shortcoming as intercultural communicators (e.g., incompetence in a foreign language, lack of knowledge about the other’s culture, unwillingness to place self in an uncomfortable position, nervousness, impatience, and overall poor communication skills). Additionally, several students reported that they had arrived at their international educational destinations with unrealistic expectations regarding their abilities to fi t in and do well in the new environment. Confronted with this self-perceived lack of success at fi tting in, they found themselves frustrated and angry with themselves, which in turn often made them resent their host-national counterparts. They understood that this contributed to a negative spiral that kept them isolated from culturally different others. When they did interact, they felt that the conversations were often uncomfortable—forced and superfi cial—resulting in feelings of being treated as a “patronized foreigner.” Some of the students stated that they resorted to what they knew would be perceived as negative behaviors in the classroom: passivity as well as aggression, especially when they thought they were being excluded or patronized by classmates and/or professors. Many of the international students reported that they became impatient and upset when classmates and professors asked them to respond to a question as a representative of “their people” or culture. Ironically, however, several of the international students noted that they sometimes prefaced their comments with statements such as “in my country, we do X…”

Other’s inadequacies. In addition to recognizing how their own inadequacies contributed to unsatisfactory intercultural interactions, the international students placed responsibility for problematic communication on their intercultural counterparts. The negative attributes most often articulated by the international students regarding their intercultural partners focused on their lack of interest in learning about the other, stereotyping, cultural insensitivity, and failure to disclose information that cued misunderstandings. Many of the students observed that host nationals seemed too busy or disinterested in getting to know them as individuals. One student noted, “When I arrived here, I became ‘someone from Germany.’” The implication is that he wanted to be recognized as more than his home country. In classroom discussions and activities, many of the international students reported feeling isolated and ignored by their classmates. Particularly diffi cult and unsatisfactory intercultural interactions were related to small-group work. One student made the following observation:

I get a little sick in my stomach when the professor tells us to work in groups in the class. I see my classmates—the American students—trying to get into groups without me…they do not even try to listen to me and they never ask me about my ideas. I stopped trying to talk in the group because it hurt me that they ignored me.

Several of the international students stated that they believed host nationals held negative stereotypes about foreign students generally and their particular group specifi cally. In addition to unsatisfactory interactions with host nationals, some of the students reported they had negative intercultural interactions with other international students. One student noted, “…sometimes it seems we are in competition to be the ‘best foreign students’ on campus.”

Issues related to cultural insensitivity were raised by the international students as well. While many of the students recognized that they were expected to and needed to adapt to their new cultural environments, they lamented the fact that persons in their host cultures were not more sensitive to the signifi cant distress that such adaptation could cause international students. This was especially evident when the students expressed their needs to maintain certain cultural customs and practices while living in another culture, particularly those related to dress, foods, family matters, and religious observations. A particularly egregious display of cultural insensitivity noted by many of the international students was when members of other cultural groups categorized them into cultural aggregates (e.g., “the Asians”). Additionally, and related to this issue, some of the students reported that they resented being misidentifi ed as a member of a cultural group other than their own based on their physical appearance.

The international students acknowledged that their own language inadequacies and/or misunderstandings were a factor in problematic cross-cultural communication interactions. However, they also placed blame for these problems on their intercultural partners. The students noted that their intercultural partners often failed to ask for clarifi cation or checked to see if they were being understood in conversations. Thus, the international students saw this as failure on their interlocutor’s part to disclose information that could prevent or clear up misunderstandings.

The international students also observed that negative unsatisfactory intercultural interactions were due, in part, to contextual factors. Most often, they blamed unnatural situations (e.g., classroom exercises, planned social interactions) where spontaneity was missing from the encounters and their interactions felt rushed, forced, and uncomfortable. Some of the students indicated that host city, local elementary schools, and university-sponsored “international fairs” were contexts for unsatisfactory intercultural communication interactions. These students characterized these activities as “degrading” to all involved and felt forced to interact with culturally different others in situations that seemed both artifi cial and superfi cial. These students observed that the contrived social interactions actually did more harm than good in that they focused too much on the surface, visible parts of culture (i.e., foods, clothing, traditional dance, slide shows of the country, etc.), thus glossing over deeper, more important aspects of the cultures they were trying to get the participants to understand and appreciate. Two comments from international students regarding these activities illustrate this point:

…I’m proud of my culture and I enjoy sharing information about it, but I felt reduced to “the man who uses chopsticks.”

…painting henna on the hands of American girls loses its charm after a while.

Additionally, several of the students discussed classroom contexts where intercultural interactions proved to be unsatisfactory for international students. Class and group projects where extensive outside-of-class interactions were expected as well as in-class discussions where language problems became apparent were articulated by several of the study participants as causing anxiety and distress and ultimately leading to unsatisfactory intercultural interactions.

RQ2: Barriers for Effective Intercultural Communication Interactions

Many of the students’ observations presented in the previous section point to obstacles that may preclude effective and satisfying intercultural encounters. When asked to specifi cally address what they thought were barriers to effective intercultural encounters, the international students emphasized the diffi culties associated with communicating in a language for which at least one of the participants is a second language. One student noted, “As an international student, language is the biggest obstacle—you can’t freely express yourself.” Misunderstandings due to language differences and the frustrations associated with inabilities to communicate in a common language were discussed by the international students as having immense negative consequences—enough to discontinue or preclude future interactions.

Attitudinal dispositions, characterized as ethnocentrism, were also seen as creating barriers for communication. Most of the international students recognized that ethnocentrism is not just located in the other; both parties take their perspectives into the communication interactions. As one student stated: “we can get caught in the ‘my culture is better than your culture’ game.” Associated with their understanding of ethnocentrism as a contributing factor to negative intercultural interactions, some of the students stated that they believed their physical appearance (i.e., looking “different”) was likely a barrier to intercultural interactions. Additionally, in-group/out-group distinctions made when students confi ned their social interactions to people from their own cultures were often interpreted by the students as a lack of interest in others’ cultures. One international student articulated his frustration with this phenomenon:

What intercultural communication? I would like to get to know some of the other students here from different countries, but they only want to be with their own people…the Americans hang out with other Americans, the Spanish with other Spanish, the Italians with the Italians, and so forth.

However, many of the international students noted that they also did this and understood the importance and the comfort of their heritage culture social networks.

The media were also identifi ed by the international students as posing barriers to satisfactory intercultural communication, especially their depictions of certain cultural groups. The students pointed to the media’s role in perpetuating stereotypes. One student articulated his frustration related to this issue:

I think the students here, in particular, the females, believe everything they see on television…they think an Arab man isn’t someone to get to know.

Many of the international students reported that they are often persuaded by the negative media coverage of certain cultural groups but also recognize that they do not seek out alternative understandings unless their assumptions are challenged.

RQ3: What Might Be Done to Facilitate Effective Intercultural Communication Interactions?

Being mindful, thinking before you speak, trying to learn about and appreciate others’ cultural customs and ways of thinking, and addressing one’s own biases towards culturally different others were often suggested by the international students when posed with this question. The international students who participated in this study articulated several areas for improvement (by self and others) that could facilitate intercultural communication interactions. They stressed the importance of developing knowledge beyond the superfi cial about the culture of others. The need for direct experiences that allow extended contact with culturally different others in natural, spontaneous contexts was another area consistently discussed by the international students. Additionally, they discussed the importance of adaptability in intercultural situations. One international student explained the measures she had taken in trying to be more open to intercultural communication experiences:

Sometimes I just have to bite my tongue to keep from saying, “that’s not how we do it in America,” but I am trying to keep an open mind, even when I’m not comfortable with the way people do things here.

The students reported that some of their most diffi cult intercultural interactions were those in which their ideas, attitudes, and beliefs were called into question—both in the moment by their intercultural partners and later through personal introspection stimulated by those encounters. A recurring theme across the students’ responses was the need to refl ect on diffi cult intercultural interactions and then to make the commitment to learn from them. In effect, the students suggested a “no pain, no gain” approach for enhancing intercultural communication effectiveness. This echoed some of the students’ observations that it was necessary for people to come to terms with their apprehension related to communicating with culturally different others. Many of the international students observed that effective, satisfying intercultural interactions cannot take place unless the parties involved recognize and free themselves of pre-conceived notions regarding persons from cultures other than their own.

In addition to taking personal responsibility for facilitating effective intercultural interactions, the students indicated that better efforts could be made by educational institutions to educate their constituencies about the importance and benefi ts of intercultural interactions. They suggested that university-sponsored “intercultural forums” in which people from different cultural backgrounds could hold conversations on topics of mutual interest be used to replace and/or supplement international fairs. They also stated that bringing people from disparate cultural backgrounds together more frequently, in non-threatening and more “natural” environments, could be a signifi cant step in increasing the effectiveness of intercultural interactions.

DISCUSSION

We undertook the present study to gain information related to international students’ perspectives on the problems that accompany communicating interculturally. Specifi cally, we wanted to know why these students elect to limit or not engage in interactions with culturally different others. Additionally, we asked them to consider what might facilitate effective, satisfying intercultural encounters. The students offered insights related to intercultural interactants’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors that led to negative outcomes in intercultural encounters. Additionally, they spoke of the many obstacles they and their intercultural partners face, and they offered suggestions that could address many of the problems attendant to unsatisfying intercultural interactions.

Interactions between culturally different individuals involve complex understandings, dispositions, and abilities that must be learned and enacted for mutual satisfaction. As educators of international students, we are in a position to guide this learning. The international students who participated in this study identifi ed many of the problems inherent in intercultural interactions. We can address these issues in our classroom and our educational communities. We can fi nd ways to ask our international students to refl ect on the cultural assumptions they hold. Furthermore, we can engage them in learning that allows them to increase their knowledge, form positive attitudes, and develop effective behaviors related to communicating with culturally different others. These are worthy goals to be embraced by educators who work with international students. Anthropologist and communication scholar Edward T. Hall (1989) made this point quite eloquently:

…one of the many paths to enlightenment is the discovery of ourselves, and this can be achieved whenever one truly knows others who are different.” (p. 8)

It is important for our students to continue to make the commitment to engage in international study. The benefi ts accrued will have lasting and important results. Helping our students understand and work through their diffi culties as intercultural interactants is a challenge that we should be prepared to meet.

REFERENCES

Bresnahan, M.J., & Cai, D.H. (2000). From the other side of the desk: Conversations with international students about teaching in the U.S. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 65-76.

Brislin, R.W. (1994). Working cooperatively with people from different cultures. In R.W. Brislin & T. Yoshida (Eds.), Improving intercultural interactions: Modules for cross-cultural training programs (pp. 17-33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Chen, L. (2002). Perceptions of intercultural interaction and communication satisfaction: A study on initial encounters. Communication Reports, 15(2), 133-147.

Dodd, C.H. (1998). Dynamics of intercultural communication (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Ekachai, D., Hinchcliff-Pelias, M., & Greer, N.S. (1998). Artifacts of intercultural communication between U.S. and international university students. In K.S. Sitaran & M. Prosser (Eds.), Civic discourse: Multiculturalism, cultural diversity, and global communication (pp. 297-309). Stamford, CT: Ablex.

Garza-Guerrero, A. (1974). Culture shock: Its mourning and the vicissitudes of identity. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 22, 408-429.

Gudykunst, W.B. (1988). Uncertainty and anxiety. In Y.Y. Kim & W.B. Gudykunst (Eds.),Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 123-156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gudykunst, W.B., & Kim, Y.Y. (1992). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hall, E.T. (1989). The dance of life: The other dimension of time. New York: Anchor Books.

Heikinheimo, P., & Shute, J. (1986). The adaptation of foreign students: Student views and institutional implications. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 399-406.

Hinchcliff-Pelias, M. (2003, October). Intercultural communication at the core of speech communication education: The power and promise of transformation. Paper presented at the Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprechwissenschaft und Sprecherziehung, Saarbrücken, Germany.

Hofstede, G. (2001).Cultures’ consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holsti, O. (1969).Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Institute of International Education. (2003). Open doors 2003: International students in the U.S. Press Release, November 17, 2003. National Press Club, Washington, D.C. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http:// opendoors.iienetwork.org

Kim, Y. (1994). Adapting to a new culture. In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A Reader (7th ed.) (pp. 392-404). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.

Klineberg, O., & Hull, W. (1979). At a foreign university: An international study of adaptation and coping. New York: Praeger.

Lind, S.L. (2002). Understanding the Japanese student experience in U.S. American university education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Mestenhauser, J.A. (1983). Learning from sojourners. In D. Landis & R.W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp.153-185). New York: Pergamon.

Morgan, D.L. (Ed.). (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177-182.

Paige, R.M. (1990). International students: Cross-cultural psychological perspectives. In R.W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology: Crosscultural research and methodology series, Vol. 14 (pp. 367-382). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pedersen. P. (1991). Counseling international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 19(1), 10-58.

Proctor, R.F., Douglas, A.T., Garera-Izquierdo, T., & Wartman, S.L. (1994). Approach, avoidance, and apprehension: Talking with high-CA students about getting help. Communication Education 43(4), 312-321.

Rajapaksa, S., & Dundes, L. (2002-2003). It’s a long way home: International student adjustment to living in the United States. College Student Retention, 4(1), 15-28.

Scott, T.J. (1998). Psychological and sociocultural outcomes of adolescent exchange students: The Thai experience in the United States. International Education, 27(2), 33-55.

Spencer-Rogers, J. (2001). Consensual and individual stereotypic beliefs about international students among American host nationals.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(6), 639-657.

Spencer-Rogers, J., & McGovern, T. (2002). Attitudes toward the culturally different: The role of intercultural communication barriers, affective responses, consensual stereotypes, and perceived threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(6), 609-631.

Stephan, W.G., & Stephan, C.W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157-176.

Stewart, D., & Shamdasani, P. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., & Sinagub, J. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zimmerman, S. (1995). Perceptions of intercultural communication competence and international student adaptation to an American campus. Communication Education, 44(4), 321-335.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors wish to thank Tessa Pelias, student, Department of Theatre, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, for her research assistance with this study.

HINCHCLIFF-PELIAS AND GREER

The Importance of Intercultural Communications in International Education

SPRING 2004 5

6 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

SPRING 2004 5