You are on page 1of 2

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION The main goal of this research is to find out communication barriers of using te chnology.

This research was done in Faculty of Education, Sakarya University in Turkey. The results of factor analysis show that there are five communication ba rriers factors in this research. These are physical barriers, emotional barriers , language barriers, gender barriers and personal barriers. The results of t-test demonstrate that there are some significant differences ba sed on gender, having a computer, internet connection at home, and having techno logy course. The results of one way ANOVA reveal that there are some significant differences based on departments, class levels, high schools, student s family s ge ographical regions, student s family s living places and student s family s incomes. In respect of these results, it is clear to see that some factors have influence d on the students when they use technology. If these factors are removed from co mmunication process, communication barriers will not come out.

Conclusions and Future Considerations On the basis of the self-reported data fromwritten questionnaires and a series o f follow-up interviews, Chinese graduate students and American advisors expresse d a high level of anxiety about students language proficiency and communication in classroom settin gs. Culture disparity, according to the students self-reported data, seemed to be a l esser barrier than English language to Chinese graduate students communication because those st udents had poor intercultural communication sensitivity. Thus, they attributed many cul ture-related behaviors to language barriers. However, American advisors displayed some sensit ivity to their Chinese students cultural background and its impact on their communication. A comparison of the communication anxieties reported by Chinese graduate student s and American advisors suggested that Chinese students tended to report a higher leve l of anxiety about their own communication than did American advisors. Also, American advisor s expressed a different focus on Chinese students communication. They were more con cerned with students listening ability and the affective domain of communication. The results of the study are supportive of the assumption that advisors and stud ents have different foci in their communication anxieties and that language proficiency an d cultural disparity represent the main barriers in international students interaction with their advisors. As any other study, this study has limitations. First, the results of this study were based on a sample of fairly small size and at one university. In addition, American ad visors were identified by their Chinese graduate students. It is possible that those advisor s who chose to participate and returned the questionnaires tended to care more about their Chin ese advisees communication than those who did not. Therefore, their responses appeared to be very

understanding and culturally sensitive. In light of the restrictions in the curr ent sample, future studies should be conducted cross-institutionally, employ a larger sample and a better selection process, as well as investigate the actual behaviors in order to suppl ement the self-reported data. With increasing globalization, exchange ofinternational students will be a more prominent phenomenon in higher education institutions across the world. Existenc e of differences between cultures and educational systems suggests that cross-cultura l learners have to go through certain adjustment and transition in their learning experienc es. Accordingly, it is important to conduct research on these adjustment experiences and help international students better adjust to their new academic life. A good understa nding of international students communication anxieties can contribute to better communica tion between international students and host institutions. Our study focused on Chine se graduate students learning experiences in the U.S. and it is hoped that more similar studi es will produce more research on international students of other national origins, thus enriching the literature on international education.

Limitations of the study 1. Many of the foreign students who were interviewed and filled the survey quest ionaire had been to India for only a month. Their responses could have differed had they stay in India was longer. 2. Many of the respondents were apprehensive while giving interview, they didn't want to reveal any personal information. They shared only limited information w hich they seemed was relevant to the questions asked. 3. The population of the experimental group is small,29 responses were received and might not represent the majority. It is difficult to generalize and form an opinion based on the 29 responses. 4. Since the designing of the questionnaire as well as analysis post the survey was done by the group itself, a certain degree of subjectivity can be found.