Intercultural Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceji20

Research Note: VIETNAMESE LEARNERS OF

ENGLISH AND THEIR INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY?

Ngoc-Tung Vu

To cite this article: Ngoc-Tung Vu (2022) Research Note: VIETNAMESE LEARNERS OF

ENGLISH AND THEIR INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY?, Intercultural Education, 33:6, 639-646,
DOI: 10.1080/14675986.2022.2154953

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2022.2154953

Published online: 21 Dec 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 21

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceji20
INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION
2022, VOL. 33, NO. 6, 639–646
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2022.2154953

Research Note: VIETNAMESE LEARNERS OF ENGLISH AND

THEIR INTERCULTURAL SENSITIVITY?
Ngoc-Tung Vu
Faculty of English, VNU University of Languages and International Studies, Hanoi, Vietnam

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This mixed-method study seeks to understand Vietnamese mixed-method research;
higher education students’ intercultural sensitivity (IS) to Intercultural sensitivity;
progress their development of intercultural communicative Vietnamese higher
education; English language
competence (ICC), as part of the efforts to enrich the litera­
education
ture on IS and ICC in the Vietnamese contexts of foreign
language education. Firstly, attending to these target stu­
dents’ English language learning, this study quantitatively
suggested that they had weak-to-moderate levels of IS and
initially proved that they were still able to interact intercultu­
rally in a relatively confident way. Moreover, based on the
framework of Chen and Starosta, the quantitative and quali­
tative findings demonstrated that the IS levels seemed to
vary among the target students, according to their demo­
graphic backgrounds (e.g. gender, academic major, language
as a medium of instruction, locations of hometown, year of
learning, and length of English language learning). Finally,
implications are discussed at the end of this manuscript,
involving much attention needed from a wide range of
related stakeholders in order to necessarily establish critical
steps for the facilitation of intercultural education in the
Vietnamese context of higher education in general and lan­
guage education in particular.

Introduction
Intercultural sensitivity (IS) is a critical component of ICC and closely associated
with and correlated with intercultural communicative competence (ICC). IS has
been the focus of attention for many researchers (e.g. Bennett 1986; Chen and
Starosta 2000; Vu 2021). To avoid confusing intercultural sensitivity and inter­
cultural communicative competence, it can be stated that the former refers to
an individual’s ability to make complex perceptual distinctions among patterns
of culture, while the latter describes those that tend to ‘think and act in
interculturally appropriate ways’ (see e.g. Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman
2003, p. 422).

CONTACT Ngoc-Tung Vu vungoctung2006@gmail.com

© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
640 N.-T. VU

As part of a longitudinal research project (Vu 2019, 2020, 2021; Vu and Dinh
2021), the present study examines Vietnamese college students’ development
of intercultural skills and seeks to gain insight into their intercultural sensitivity.
The study used a mixed-methods approach, generating both qualitative and
quantitative data. The data collected for this study were gathered via an e-
questionnaire, which was adopted from the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale devel­
oped by Chen and Starosta (2000). Adaptations were made to modify some
wording and to reverse-code some items. The scale contains a total of 24 items,
involving five intercultural sensitivity dimensions (interaction engagement;
respect for cultural differences; interaction confidence; interaction enjoyment;
interaction attentiveness).
There were two versions of the questionnaire. The first was first written in
English by the researcher himself, while two experts were invited to provide
comments. The second version of the survey was translated back and forth by
two professional translators to ensure accuracy of meaning. Subsequently, we
invited a group of 20 individuals, 10 teachers and 10 students, to provide
comments on the suitability and understandability of the Vietnamese version
of the questionnaire, which involved students’ self-reported levels of intercul­
tural sensitivity. The survey was distributed to several universities (snowball
sampling), with a consent form attached to an invitation email. The data collec­
tion took place in a period of 3 weeks around the middle of 2021. The partici­
pants were informed of the research purposes and their right to withdraw at any
time. The final questionnaire included 3 sections:

● Section 1: Participants’ demographic information (gender, hometown,

school type, school year, discipline, instruction-related language, year of
language learning, language proficiency).
● Section 2: Students’ self-rated levels of intercultural sensitivity on a 5point-
Likert scale (with 1 denoting ‘very weak’ and 5 denoting ‘very strong’);
● Section 3: Students’ self-rated levels of intercultural competence on
a 5point-Likert scale (with 1 denoting ‘very weak’ and 5 denoting ‘very
strong’).

There were a total of 261 responses (Appendix A), but 236 responses were
included and used for analysis after an initial review of completed survey
responses and removal of outliers that could have affected the overall reliability.
Data were processed using the Statistic Package of Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 20, which we ran and checked carefully after running descriptive and
inferential analyses. Firstly, after reviewing the data, it showed that data invol­
ving the dependent variable (IS) and students’ profiles were not normally
distributed. The investigations of normal distribution were based on two
forms, including visual analysis and Shapiro-Wilk indexes, which showed nor­
mally distributed data (the value p > 0.05). Therefore, the study analyses
 INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 641

continued following non-parametric tests. In response to this, inferential ana­

lyses were then conducted with Mann-Whitney U tests and Kruskal-Wallis
H tests as alternative selections of independent samples t-tests and one-way
ANOVA tests, respectively. Descriptive statistics were evaluated against the
following scale as follows: Very Weak (1.0–1.8), Weak (1.8–2.6), Moderate (2.6–
3.4), Strong (3.4–4.2), and Very Strong (4.2–5.0).
After we analysed the findings quantitatively, discrepancies were found
between demographic groups. However, wide differences between demo­
graphic backgrounds encouraged the research team to consider using inter­
views to explore if the quantitative numbers could lead to false or misleading
interpretations. After careful review, based on the current literature and sys­
tematic quantitative analysis, the research team contacted individuals who
agreed to participate in follow-up interviews. The students who completed
interviews were contacted via email and were granted one week to respond.
All students invited for 20-minute interviews agreed to participate in order to
yield findings missing from the questionnaire results, in addition to regular
reflection notes. After three weeks, we recorded structured interviews with 20
students, including 10 male students (M) and 10 females (F). Triangulated data
allowed us to deepen our understanding of Vietnamese HE students’ intercul­
tural sensitivity levels and how the levels were impacted by demographic
characteristics.

Results
The results suggested that HE students could be characterised by five forms of
ICC to a varying extent. Firstly, on the whole, students tended to be charac­
terised by relatively low levels of intercultural sensitivity. They self-reported for
instance the following: interactional enjoyment (M = 3.45), feelings of discour­
agement (M = 3.02), feeling upset (M = 3.61), and helplessness (M = 3.72).
Secondly, student intercultural sensitivity competence was relatively low in
terms of respect for cultural differences (M = 3.01) and interaction engagement (M
= 2.91, SD = 0.80). Regarding the latter, students appeared significantly more
open-minded to (M = 3.25), and enjoyed exposure to (M = 3.08), cultural differ­
ences. Thirdly, interactional attentiveness (M = 2.45) and intercultural confidence
(M = 2.24) were the lowest self-reported levels. Slightly higher were seeking
sufficient information (M = 2.98), as well as stay sociable (M = 2.64).

Gender differentials
The quantitative and qualitative results, analysed below, suggest that there
were gender differences and that students tended to self-report their intercul­
tural sensitivity quite differently according to their personal background, aca­
demic level, and sociocultural exposure. Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted
642 N.-T. VU

to explore whether there were any differences between students’ self-ratings of

intercultural sensitivity competencies. There were statistically significant gender
differences in the students’ self-rated intercultural sensitivity competence, in
terms of respect for cultural differences between males (M = 3.04) and females (M
= 3.01) at p < 0.05 (U = 2190.5; z = 2.361; p <0.05), interaction confidence between
males (M = 2.66) and females (M = 2.18), at p < 0.005 (U = 1927.0, z = 3.137, p <
0.01), and interaction enjoyment between males (M = 2.79) and females (M =
3.54), at p < 0.01 (U = 4029.0, z = 3.002, p < 0.01). This implies that male students
were more capable of showing respect for cultural differences and interaction
confidence than females. Aligned with the qualitative findings, one of the male
students in an interview shared that:
I learned from our family culture that I, as a future head of the family, should be brave in
making the important decisions. I think in learning; I can do the same thing. (M8)

However, in contrast to their being more interaction enjoyment among females

compared to males, one female student reflected that:
It was a new and worthwhile learning experience. I wish to have more interactions with
peers who are male and from different backgrounds. (F1)

Hard science and social science students

Students majoring in hard sciences deemed their intercultural sensitivity to be

lower than their social science counterparts, particularly in terms of interaction
enjoyment, with the former group (M = 3.02) and the latter group (M = 3.51), at p
< 0.005 (U = 3586.5, z = 2.305, p = 0.021). In terms of the qualitative findings, two
social sciences students used the descriptors ‘fabulous’ (M1) and ‘engaging’ (F7),
while another student referred to ‘experiential knowledge related to how to
attractively communicate with people with Western strangers’ (M1, Interview).
Another student was curious about ‘how other Asian speakers of English make
decisions on how to make friends with someone’ (F7, Reflective note). In con­
trast to these students, one hard science student wrote that:
I could not get used to being comfortable sharing perspectives in public, even with my
friends who are my friends for nearly 2 years. I found that my prior learning experience
prevented me collaborating with someone and I was more eager to isolate myself from
others. (M2, Reflective note)

Students in programs with English versus Vietnamese as a medium of

instruction
Intercultural sensitivity levels were statistically significantly lower among those
with Vietnamese as a medium of instructionthan those with English as
 INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 643

a medium of instruction: interaction engagement (MM = 2.85 & MF = 3.11, U =

5249.60, z = 2.723, p < 0.001), interaction confidence (MM = 2.12 & MF = 2.76; U =
6047.5, z = 4.712, p < 0.01), and interaction attentiveness (MM = 2.36 & MF = 2.85;
U = 5399.5, z = 3.112, p < 0.01). This points to fact that students who have more
chances to learn using English as a means of instruction grow their interaction
engagement, confidence, and attentiveness better than those with Vietnamese
as a language of instruction.
In line with these quantitative findings, the qualitative observations showed
that a regular use of English in the students’ studies, was connected to their
intercultural sensitivity in terms of ‘cognition’ (M4), ‘affection’ (F6), and ‘beha­
viour’ (M4 & F6). Examples include:

my friends use their knowledge to interpret a cultural phenomenon that is different

from what they already knew (M4, Interview)

‘showing appreciation towards what differs from my opinions’ (F6, Interview)

Students from Northern, Central, and Southern Vietnam

Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA tests were run to explore students’ self-rated
intercultural sensitivity levels. The data suggest that interaction engagement is
perceived very differently among students who come from different regions of
Vietnam, have different years of schooling, and have different levels of language
proficiency. Secondly, students from different regions, who had different levels
of language abilities, tended to have different self-reports regarding their
respect for cultural differences. Thirdly, students with longer language learning
experience and stronger language abilities, viewed interactions in distinctive
ways, with those with proficient English reporting higher levels of interaction
confidence regarding IS.
There were statistically significant differences1 between students coming
from Northern, Central, and Southern Vietnam, especially relating to students’
interaction engagement (χ2(2) = 6.807, p < 0.05) and respect for cultural differences
(χ2(3) = 6.312, p < 0.05).
The qualitative data revealed that 2nd, 3rd and final-year students were more
excited to develop their ICC due to their teachers’ willingness to create more
activities that encouraged them ‘to expand my knowledge beyond the text­
books since my learning during their first year was not closely relevant to my
major’ (M5), so students ‘had to seek more space to learn by finding language-
related resources from the Internet’ (F6) or ‘sought some college clubs’ to
diversify one’s ‘knowledge base’ (M9). The two first-year students were a bit
more hesitant as they were ‘challenged to interact with their classmates and to
find ways to deepen their respect about culture’ (F1). One of the first-year
644 N.-T. VU

students also stated, ‘I am unclear whether my chosen ways of expression are

appropriate’, so ‘I tended to wait longer to observe’ (F4).

Students’ school year & length of English learning experience

Students’ self-rated ICC levels, in terms of interaction engagement (χ2(3) = 9.154, p =
0.027) and interaction attentiveness (χ2(3) = 13.939, p = 0.003) were informed by their
school year. Moreover, it was clear that (3) students who spent a greater amount of
time studying English tended to have interaction attentiveness scores higher than
those who spent a shorter time studying English p < 0.05 (χ2(3) = 8.724, p = 0.033).

Students with different levels of language proficiency

Students who were more competent in language proficiency reported higher
intercultural sensitivity levels than those with lower proficiency. Students with
B1-B2 (M = 3.18) or C1-C2 (M = 4.09) levels had higher interaction engagement
than those with A1-A2 (M = 2.79). Also, students with B1-B2 levels (M = 3.07)
expressed more respect for cultural differences than those with A1-A2, but less
than those with C1-C2 (M = 3.73).
Four students in the qualitative part of the research shared that their respect
towards cultural differences was supported by learning activities that required
them to reflect on their experiences rather than passively acquire knowledge
from language instructors at language centres or colleges. For instance, the
students commented that:

when I was taught to pay more attention to how people with whom I interact feel, our
conversation became more attractive and I stayed more mentally focused. (F2)

Especially when we were invited to talk with a foreign teacher via Zoom, there were so
many things I could share – we got to explore the values of people in another country.
(F3)

Another student added:

because I can consider myself to be a high-level user of English, I believe maintaining

a sufficient base of language knowledge can help to sustain my capacity for interac­
tion, not just to speak English with others to enhance my skills, but to deepen my
ability to empathise. (M6)

In line with student M6’s reflections, it is certainly true that interaction confidence
was less developed among students with A1-A2 (M = 2.05) compared to B1-B2
(M = 2.67) and C1-C2 levels (M = 3.32).
 INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION 645

Conclusions
The results show that Vietnamese HE students had very weak to moderate levels of
intercultural sensitivity. The data did suggest that they enjoyed the possibility to
interact interculturally but lacked confidence. In Vietnam, there is a heavy reliance
on Communicative Language Teaching. The reliance is primarily promoted by
a culture of text-driven learning on the basis of ‘the native-speaker competence’
(Ho and Nguyen et al. 2019). Consequently, the importance of English learners’
communicative competence is downplayed, explaining their inability to produce
desired achievement outcomes. In other words, they are less likely to ‘behave
adequately in a flexible manner when confronted with actions, attitudes, and
expectations of representatives of foreign cultures’ (Meyer 1991, p. 138). As
a result, students’ efforts to reach a proficient level of English language fall short
of desired outcomes.
The present study’s findings can provide critical insights for Vietnamese
policy makers, curriculum writers, practitioners, and students themselves.
Therefore, the incorporation of intercultural teaching and learning in
Vietnamese university programs, in general, and English language education
programs, in particular, can be widely beneficial.

Note
1. significance level p < 0.05.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor
Ngoc-Tung Vu is currently a teacher, educator, and teacher trainer of English language
education. He is working at University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam
National University, Hanoi City. He is also a doctoral student at University at Albany, State
University of New York. His research interests cover intercultural communication in higher
education. He can be reached at vungoctung2006@gmail.com.

References
Bennett, M. J. 1986. “A Developmental Approach to Training for Intercultural Sensitivity.”
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10 (2): 179–196. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(86)
90005-2.
Chen, G. M., and W. J. Starosta. 2000. “The Development and Validation of the International
Communication Sensitivity Scale.” Human Communication 3: 1–15. https://digitalcom
mons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=com_facpubs.
646 N.-T. VU

Hammer, M. R., M. J. Bennett, and R. Wiseman. 2003. “Measuring Intercultural Sensitivity: The
Intercultural Development Inventory.” International Journal of Intercultural Relation 27:
421–443. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(03)00032-4.
Ho, T. M. H., and T. H. Nguyen. 2019. “English as a Lingua Franca for Vietnam: Current Issues
and Future Directions.” In English-For-Everyone Policy and Its Social Impact: Discourses,
Realities, and Social Impact in Vietnam, edited by V. C. Le, 166–183. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Meyer, M. 1991. “Development Transcultural Competence: Case Studies of Advanced Foreign
Language Learners.” In Mediating language culture, edited by D. Buttjes and M. Byrams,
136–158. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Vu, N. T. 2019. “Theoretical Constructs and Practical Strategies for Intercultural
Communication: Informed Teaching Practices in Vietnam.” Journal of Curriculum Studies
Research 1 (1): 43–53. 10.46303.jcsr.01.01.4
Vu, N. T. 2020. “Constructivist Learning Facilitates Intercultural Communication of Prospective
Teachers: A Three-Month Case Study to Investigate in Vietnam.” Journal of English as an
International Language 15 (2): 52–76.
Vu, N. T. 2021. “Vietnamese International Students in Offshore Programs: Engagement in
Intercultural Communicative Competence and Intercultural Sensitivity.” Journal of
Intercultural Communication Research 19 (2): 229–253. doi:10.1080/17475759.2021.
1970612.
Vu, N. T., and H. Dinh. 2021. “College-Level Students’ Development of Intercultural
Communicative Competence: A Quantitative Study in Vietnam.” Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research 51 (2): 208–227. doi:10.1080/17475759.2021.1893207.

Appendix A: Participants’ profiles