SavedAdd your journal

Journals / 21. Yüzyılda Eğitim ve Toplum / 2026 / Cilt: 15 Sayı: 44

The Relationship Between Language Proficiency and Intercultural Sensitivity Among International Learners of Turkish: A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Study

Türkçe Öğrenen Uluslararası Öğrencilerde Dil Yeterliliği ile Kültürlerarası Duyarlılık İlişkisi: Boylamsal Karma Yöntemli Bir Çalışma

Mehmet Er(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0007-7119-7882
Pages
379–402
Publication Date
2026-09-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings revealed no statistically significant difference between A1 and B1 level levels (t = -0.157; p > .05), but a significant increase in intercultural sensitivity scores was observed when transitioning from B1 to C1 (t = -5.525; p < .05) and from A1 to C1 (t = -3.625; p < .05).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This longitudinal mixed-methods study aims to examine the developmental dimension of the relationship between language proficiency levels and intercultural sensitivity of international students learning Turkish as a foreign language.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study was conducted with 24 students studying at Gazi University Turkish Language Learning Research and Application Center (TÖMER), who were measured at A1, B1, and C1 level, respectively; the ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 33, with an average age of 22.08 (ss = 4.88).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings revealed no statistically significant difference between A1 and B1 level levels (t = -0.157; p > .05), but a significant increase in intercultural sensitivity scores was observed when transitioning from B1 to C1 (t = -5.525; p < .05) and from A1 to C1 (t = -3.625; p < .05).
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Kültürlerarası duyarlılık · dil öğretimi · uluslararası öğrenciler

Abstract

This longitudinal mixed-methods study aims to examine the developmental dimension of the relationship between language proficiency levels and intercultural sensitivity of international students learning Turkish as a foreign language. The study was conducted with 24 students studying at Gazi University Turkish Language Learning Research and Application Center (TÖMER), who were measured at A1, B1, and C1 level, respectively; the ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 33, with an average age of 22.08 (ss = 4.88). Quantitative data were collected using the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale developed by Wang and Zhou (2016) and adapted into Turkish by Nazlı and Aşık (2022); the obtained scores were analyzed using the Dependent Samples t-test. The findings revealed no statistically significant difference between A1 and B1 level levels (t = -0.157; p > .05), but a significant increase in intercultural sensitivity scores was observed when transitioning from B1 to C1 (t = -5.525; p < .05) and from A1 to C1 (t = -3.625; p < .05). This finding indicates that the transition from intermediate-upper to advanced level constitutes a critical threshold in intercultural development. In the qualitative dimension of the research, data obtained from semi-structured interviews conducted with 13 students were examined through descriptive analysis; five main themes were identified: intercultural interaction, intercultural differences, effective communication, areas developed by intercultural communication, and the contribution of formal language teaching. It was found that, especially in advanced students, codes for developing empathy, self-awareness, broadening horizons, and accepting different ideas became more prominent; and that the role of teachers as cultural ambassadors and the use of empathetic language played a supportive role in this development. When quantitative and qualitative findings are evaluated together, it is concluded that language proficiency and intercultural sensitivity are simultaneous processes that progress at different rates; and that the transition from intermediate to advanced level constitutes a decisive turning point in this development. In this context, it is recommended that Turkish as a foreign language teaching programs be structured with integrated pedagogical approaches that center on intercultural sensitivity from the intermediate level onwards.

Özet

Bu boylamsal karma yöntemli araştırma, Türkçeyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen uluslararası öğrencilerin dil yeterlilik düzeyleri ile kültürlerarası duyarlılıkları arasındaki ilişkinin gelişimsel boyutunu incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, Gazi Üniversitesi Türkçe Öğrenim Araştırma, Uygulama Merkezinde (TÖMER) eğitim gören ve sırasıyla A1, B1 ve C1 kur düzeylerinde ölçüm alınan 24 öğrenici ile yürütülmüştür; katılımcıların yaşları 18-33 arasında değişmekte olup yaş ortalaması 22,08'dir (ss = 4,88). Araştırmanın nicel verileri, Wang ve Zhou (2016) tarafından geliştirilen ve Nazlı ile Aşık (2022) tarafından Türkçeye uyarlanan Kültürlerarası Duyarlılık Ölçeği aracılığıyla toplanmış; elde edilen puanlar Bağımlı Örneklemler İçin t-testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, A1 ile B1 kur düzeyleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılaşma olmadığını (t = -,157; p > .05), buna karşılık B1'den C1'e (t = -5,525; p < .05) ve A1'den C1'e (t = -3,625; p < .05) geçişte kültürlerarası duyarlılık puanlarında anlamlı bir artış yaşandığını ortaya koymuştur. Bu bulgu, orta-üst düzeyden ileri düzeye geçişin kültürlerarası gelişimde kritik bir eşik oluşturduğuna işaret etmektedir. Araştırmanın nitel boyutunda, 13 öğrenici ile gerçekleştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerden elde edilen veriler betimsel analiz yoluyla incelenmiş; kültürlerarası etkileşim, kültürlerarası farklar, etkili iletişim, kültürlerarası iletişimin geliştirdiği alanlar ve formal dil öğretiminin katkısı olmak üzere beş ana tema belirlenmiştir. Özellikle ileri düzey öğrencilerde empati geliştirme, öz farkındalık, ufuk genişlemesi ve farklı düşünceleri kabul etme kodlarının belirginleştiği; öğretmenlerin kültür elçisi rolü ve empatik dil kullanımının bu gelişimi destekleyici bir işlev üstlendiği tespit edilmiştir. Nicel ve nitel bulgular birlikte değerlendirildiğinde, dil yeterliliği ile kültürlerarası duyarlılığın eşzamanlı ancak farklı hızlarda ilerleyen süreçler olduğu; orta düzeyden ileri düzeye geçişin bu gelişimde belirleyici bir dönüm noktası oluşturduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğretimi programlarının orta düzeyden itibaren kültürlerarası duyarlılığı merkeze alan bütünleşik pedagojik yaklaşımlarla yapılandırılması önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Er, M. (2026). The Relationship Between Language Proficiency and Intercultural Sensitivity Among International Learners of Turkish: A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Study. 21. Yüzyılda Eğitim ve Toplum, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 44, 379–402. https://ajindex.com/articles/1640775

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (38)

  1. Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence (pp. 3–15). M.E. Sharpe.
  2. Baker, W. (2015). Culture and complexity through English as a lingua franca: Rethinking competences and pedagogy in ELT. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(1), 9-30. DOI: 10.1515/jelf-2015-0005
  3. Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Intercultural Press.
  4. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
  5. Chen, G. M., & Starosta, W. J. (1997). A review of the concept of intercultural sensitivity. Human Communication, 1(1), 1–16. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=com_facpubs
  6. Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference For Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment Companion Volume With New Descriptors.
  7. Language Policy Programme Education Policy Division Education Department. Strasbourg.
  8. Creamer, E. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research.
  9. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  10. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315306287002
  11. Dervin, F. (2016). Interculturality in education: A theoretical and methodological toolbox. Palgrave Macmillan.
  12. Dervin, F., & Gross, Z. (2016). Intercultural competence in education: Alternative approaches for different times. Palgrave Macmillan.
  13. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. Fantini, A. E. (2009). Assessing intercultural competence: Issues and tools. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 456– 476). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071872987.n27
  14. Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
  15. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York Basic Books. Hendrickson, B., Rosen, D, R. K., Aune (2011). Intercultural connectivity: A study of international students’ social networks. Journal of International Students, 8(2), 1066–1085. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v8i2.141
  16. Holmes, P., & O’Neill, G. (2012). Developing and evaluating intercultural competence: Ethnographies of intercultural encounters. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(5), 707-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.04.010
  17. Jackson, J. (2020). The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication. Routledge.
  18. Jackson, J. (2018). Interculturality in international education. Routledge. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
  19. Kecskes, I. (2020). Interculturality and intercultural pragmatics. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication (P. II, p. 8-18). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003036210
  20. Kim, Y. Y. (2017). Identity and Intercultural Communication. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication. Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783665
  21. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford University Press.
  22. Liddicoat, A. J., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118482070
  23. Malinowski, B. (2015). The dynamics of culture change: An inquiry into race relations in Africa. Yale University Press. (Original work published 1945)
  24. Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2019). Culture and emotion: Integrating biological universality with cultural specificity. In D. Matsumoto & H. C. Hwang (Eds.), The handbook of culture and psychology (2nd ed., pp. 361–398). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190679743.003.0012
  25. Nazlı, Ö. P., & Aşık, A. (2022). Adaptation and validation of the intercultural sensitivity scale to Turkish EFL contexts and for young learners. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 16(1), 74–96. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ1343056.pdf
  26. Oberg, K. (1960). Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environments. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/009182966000700405 OECD (2025). Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. https:// www.oecd.org/en/topics/international-student-mobility.html
  27. Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 5(4), 207–214. https:// doi.org/10.2307/409588
  28. Tabak, H., Aksu-Dünya, B., & Şahin, F. (2022). Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
  29. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  30. Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2017). Cultural intelligence: Surviving and thriving in the global village (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  31. Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive culture: Researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom. John Murray.
  32. UNESCO (2025). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/record-number-higher-education-students- highlights-global-need-recognition-qualifications
  33. Usborne, E., & de la Sablonnière, R. (2014). Understanding my culture means understanding myself: The function of cultural identity clarity for personal identity
  34. clarity and personal psychological well‐being. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 44(4), 436–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12061
  35. Wang, W., & Zhou, M. (2016). Validation of the short form of the Intercultural Sensitivity Scale (ISS-15). International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 55(1–7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.08.002
  36. Ward, C. (1999). Acculturation and Adaptation Revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022199030004003
  37. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press.
  38. Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805