Journals / Eurasian Journal of Educational Research / 2018 / Cilt: 78 - Sayı: 78

A Study on Communication Breakdowns: Sources of Misunderstanding in a Cross-Cultural Setting

Pages
139–158
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Further studies are needed to investigate other potential areas of miscommunication, and with a more representative sample of cultures.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Erasmus exchange program has a positive influence on students’ intercultural awareness since they find the chance to meet other cultures.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Method: The data was collected from 69 participants: 39 Turkish students attending three different universities in Turkey and 30 Erasmus students coming from seven different countries.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Further studies are needed to investigate other potential areas of miscommunication, and with a more representative sample of cultures.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The Erasmus exchange program has a positive influence on students’ intercultural awareness since they find the chance to meet other cultures. Despite high levels of proficiency, there may still be misunderstandings between students of different cultures. As a consequence, the Erasmus program might not achieve its pluriculturalism aim. Purpose of the Study: This study aimed to find out what kind of communicational problems -if any- stemmed from cultural differences in the interactions of Erasmus students with the Turkish students in an undergraduate education context. Method: The data was collected from 69 participants: 39 Turkish students attending three different universities in Turkey and 30 Erasmus students coming from seven different countries. Findings: The answers were clustered in three main themes; the quality of communication; common areas of misunderstanding; and perceptions of each other. Turkish students perceived a better quality of communication with the visiting students. The eye contact patterns of the visiting students and Turkish students caused misunderstanding. As for pragmatics, inviting and offering procedures w ere the main sources of misunderstanding. Visiting students perceived Turkish people as helpful and benevolent, sometimes to the point of being pushy or too protectionist. Turkish people, on the other hand, tended to describe visiting students as individualistic and “free-spirited” people. Implications for Research and Practice: University courses can help students engage in awareness raising activities, and provide more orientation at the onset of exchange terms. Further studies are needed to investigate other potential areas of miscommunication, and with a more representative sample of cultures.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARACA, B., KORKUT, P., DOLMACI, M. (2022). A Study on Communication Breakdowns: Sources of Misunderstanding in a Cross-Cultural Setting. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Cilt: 78 - Sayı: 78, 139–158. https://ajindex.com/articles/507144

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Baker, W. (2012). From cultural awareness to intercultural awareness: Culture in ELT. ELT Journal, 66(1), 62-70.
  2. Barkhuizen, G., & Feryok, A. (2006). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of a short-term international experience programme. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 3(1), 115-134. DOI: 10.1080/13598660500479904 Barnett, G.A., & Jiang, K. (2017). Issues in intercultural communication: A systematic network analysis. In L. Chen (Ed.), Intercultural communication (pp.99-118). Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Inc. Bayat, N. (2013). A study on the use of speech acts. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 213-221. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.057 Berg, B.L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Bordens, K.S., & Abbott, B.B. (2008). Research design and methods: A process approach (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Bratanic, M. (2007). Nonverbal communication as a factor in linguistic and cultural miscommunication. In A. Esposito, M. Bratanic, E.Keller & M.Marinaro (Eds.), Fundamentals of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication and the Biometric Issue (pp. 82-91). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  3. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Chick, K. (1989). Intercultural miscommunication as a source of friction in the workplace and in educational settings in South Africa. In O. Garcia & R. Otheguy (Eds.), English Across Cultures, Cultures Across English (pp.139-160). Berlin-NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Crowther, D., & DeCosta, P.I. (2017). Developing mutual intelligibility and conviviality in the 21st century classroom: Insights from English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 450-460.
  5. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. Fox, C. (1997). The authenticity of intercultural communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(1), 85-103.
  7. Garand, D. (2009). Misunderstanding: A typology of performance. Common Knowledge. 15(3), 472-500.
  8. Groenwald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal