Intercultural Challenges in Networked Learning: Hard Technologies Meet Soft Skills

Abstract

This paper gives an account of themes that emerged from a preliminary analysis of a large corpus of electronic communications in an online, mediated course for intercultural learners. The goals were to test assumptions that electronic communication is internationally standardized, to identify any problematic aspects of such communications, and to construct a framework for the analysis of electronic communications using constructs from intercultural communications theory. We found that cyberspace itself has a culture(s), and is not culture-free. Cultural gaps can exist between individuals, as well as between individuals and the dominant cyberculture, increasing the chances of miscommunication. The lack of elements inherent in face-to-face communication further problematizes intercultural communications online by limiting opportunities to give and save face, and to intuit meaning from non-verbal cues. We conclude that electronic communication across cultures presents distinctive challenges, as well as opportunities to course planners.

Perceptions of Online Learning in an Australian University: Malaysian Students’ Perspective – Support for Learning

“…Several researchers have reported that cultural and language differences can effect online interactions and communications between students from different cultural backgrounds [26], [27]. In this study, the qualitative analysis of the open-ended question data indicated that this was so for only a minority of the Malaysian students.…”

Is It Fully ‘On’ or Partly ‘Off’? The Case of Fully-Online Provision of Transnational Education

“…Students in face-to-face classroom settings see and work with one another and get to know each other well through the learning process. Online communications, on the other hand, lack elements inherent in face-to-face communication including context perception, eye contact, and a parallel visual and gestural information; the value of those elements is strongly embedded in some cultures, including the Confucian heritage cultures (Chase, Macfadyen, Reeder, & Roche, 2002). While for successful delivery online, the learning process on the Web needs to be well facilitated, the facilitation has to be particularly thoughtful when designing and delivering online programs to culturally diverse learners (Kum, Chang, & Bauer, 2000).…”

A Literature Review and Directions for Future Research on International Student Perceptions of Online versus Face-to-Face Education: Program-centered Characteristics

“…Previous studies examined differences across cultures (Cronje, 2011;Chew & Yee, 2015;Grandon et al, 2005;Li & Kirkup, 2005;Popov et al, 2012;Popov, Noroozi, Barrett, Biemans, Teasley, Slof & Mulder 2014;Zhu, Valcke & Schellens., 2009) and within cultures (Adler et al, 2001;Chase et al, 2002;Hamdan, 2014;Okwumabua, Walker, Hu & Watson, 2010). In a recent cross-cultural comparison between Malaysian and Australian students, no significant differences in students' perceptions existed on computer usage, lecturer support, equity, student interaction and collaboration (Chew & Yee, 2015).…”

“…Cyberspace has a culture and gaps can exist between individuals as well as between individuals and the dominant cyber-culture, which increases the likelihood of miscommunication (Chase et al, 2002). The lack of elements found in FTF communication acerbates the intercultural communication online by limiting opportunities to give and 'save face' as well as draw meaning from nonverbal cues (Chase et al, 2002). The lack of contextual cues can inhibit students -particularly collectivist students, which may benefit from adding video or voice connection activities to online capabilities (Popov et al, 2014).…”

“…Cultural backgrounds differ in terms of cognitive styles, rules of behavior, communication styles, attitudes and belief systems, and human relations (Hofstede, 1991). They present distinct challenges and opportunities to the growth of online education -particularly related to differences in academic abilities, gender, perceptions of time, professional status, student expectations and tolerance for criticism (Chase, Reeder & Roche, 2002). …”