Different communication styles

Quietness or silence in a discussion was perceived as one of the greatest challenges in MGW. This reflects the findings of Turner (2009).

This participant was frustrated by the silence of group members during discussion and also complained that even with a fair amount of attempts, they still could not expect more participation from coursemates.

171 Example 3.8a

Q3038.2: “In general I don’t like group work because you always face difficulties because some people work more than others. But especially here with Asian course mates it was difficult because most of them never expressed their thoughts during the meetings even after you asked them individually and stayed quiet for the whole time”

However, silence, or using few words and non-verbal communication to express oneself, would be considered by traditional Confucians as a valuable demonstration of wisdom, and an illustration of respect for others’ time and knowledge (Gudykunst, 2004). So as the student pointed out in Example 3.8a, the struggle was mostly with Asian coursemates who were more likely to be from a Confucian heritage culture, where they might just be used to using silence in a different way. In the same way as silence in discussion can be perceived differently by students from different cultures, so can assertiveness. Ivanka, who came from eastern Europe, was already quoted explaining that being able to debate different ideas very openly and directly with her team members was how she had done GW in her home country. She also commented on the likely impact of a very direct style of arguing: Example 3.8b

I06 [Ivanka]: “… if you're aggressive, if you're assertive in the way you're talking, some cultures shut down whereas others respond with the same thing and that’s when

consensus happens”.

The assertive approach did not function well when she worked in mixed groups in the UK, because “some cultures shut down” (Example 3.8b). With others, however, the assertiveness of the speaker might encourage them to “respond with the same thing” which Ivanka links positively to consensus as a good outcome.

A perspective provided by a Chinese participant reveals an interesting insight about how she positioned herself in a multicultural group, and why:

Example 3.8c

Q3086.1: “I usually do the coordination work in my group as Chinese culture train me tend not to be aggressive during the group work.”

This student’s reference to her “Chinese culture” as a kind of training (Example 3.8c) that makes her take a role in group work that does not involve being “aggressive” is supported by the literature on Chinese communication placing more emphasis on non-verbal aspects and implicitness (Wang, 2012). When working in groups, the majority of students expect each other to exchange ideas, to talk about

172 every idea they have, being explicit about problems or situations, and sometimes talk in a loud voice to debate and ask repeating questions to clarify ideas. All of these above “appropriate” or acceptable behaviours in MGW would be perceived as bad manners and a lack of respect in Confucian heritage cultures (Valiente, 2008).

Wei gave an explanation of why he would prefer to keep silent in the discussion in Example 3.8d.

Example 3.8d

I15 [Wei]: “I usually wait to see if the situation is good enough, sometimes I do

contribute, because I think I have a better idea. When I say it out loud, then I don’t like to be challenged.

Researcher: why don’t you say it in the first place?

I15 [Wei]: Like I said before, I wish I were a ‘fire fighter’. I am not used to throwing out my ideas in the beginning…that is too high key…. that’s not good.

He pointed out that providing his ideas in the beginning would attract too much attention, and he should only start to suggest ideas when others could not come up with ones that he thought were good enough. He also would prefer not to be challenged once he started talking.

This approach on the one hand seemed to be associated with his previous experience of leading student groups, however, some other Chinese students also had a similar approach in discussion.

Example 3.8e

I17 [Chuju]: “…I prefer to speak only when I have something interesting to say. It is like people get on Facebook all the time, but also think it is boring to post photos all the time… so if I want to attract attention, I would only post things that are special, like group photos of special event of the day…so I start to think if I could not get a chance to speak up in the group work discussion, I should come up with a really special or convincing idea, then raise my hand, so that they would think what I said is very special, then later they will get use to ask me about my ideas”.

In Example 3.8e, Chuju on the one hand mentioned she could not always get a chance to speak up in the discussion, on the other hand she decided to adjust how her group members would perceive her by only speaking when there is something special to say. This “only speak when the idea is good” approach seemed to help her in establishing a reputation for good ideas, to win herself a voice in the group discussion.

173 This struggle of getting a voice in the discussion was not Chuju’s individual problem. Xiaomi also expressed her struggle as well, even when she thought she was helping the group by correcting them, as in Example 3.8f:

Example 3.8f

I16 [Xiaomi] : “Then I end up forcing myself to go home to do more reading, so at least the second day if they were wrong I can correct them, so I end up only learning how to complain.

Researcher: So you are saying because you did your reading, so you could see the problems in their discussion?

I16 [Xiaomi]: Yes. If someone does not listen to me, I will look for the ones who are willing to listen as well as have influence in the group. If he or she thinks I am right, then the situation gets better.

From the comments from Xiaomi above, she explained how she had to reply on some other group member’s influence on the team, in order to maintain her standing, as not everybody would listen when she spoke.

Some native speakers realised that the different pace of speaking and conversation flow would be especially challenging for international students to keep up if their English proficiency was not good enough to cope with a fast exchange of ideas. One who managed to realise the difference had learnt to slow down for international students:

Example 3.8g

Q3056: “… The non native speakers, who while it's hard for all, every one benefits, I learn to speak slower and be more considerate and they get to practice as well. We all benefit”.

Another pointed out that while “it’s hard for all” (Example 3.8g) to slow down and listen to others, giving space and time in a conversation that allows others to articulate their ideas is important for including non-native speakers in the discussion.

174 Example 3.8h

I05 [Jaime]: “Yeah, like I haven't had any issues where things were just like so hard I couldn’t understand, if I just like slowed down, like listened to someone. I think some people get frustrated because they’re used to speaking in a certain conversation flow. They’re used to speaking quickly. I think especially Americans, it’s very direct, like exchange your idea, okay, next. And it’s not always the case, but I mean if someone took a little bit longer to articulate something, or if they weren’t doing it in a way that was conventional, I could see how people would get frustrated. But I wouldn't say that people couldn’t function properly. I’ve never met anyone in our course that couldn’t articulate themselves or accomplish what they needed to with their mastery of English”.

She shared her perception of the situation from both sides. While she could “see how people would get frustrated” if a non-native speaker “took a little bit longer to articulate something” (Example 3.8h), she also emphasised that in her experience there were no students on her own course that “couldn’t … accomplish what they needed to” in English.

International students also voiced their frustration at trying to keep up with high- speed conversation in English:

Example 3.8i

Q1107: “…The honest truth is group work can be a really cut throat environment and may result people feeling ostracised by other group members who are not willing to slow down for them.”

In Example 3.8i, the student observes that in some cases, the speed of talk is intimidating (“a really cut-throat environment”) and can lead to perceived isolation - “feeling ostracized” - by the rest of the group.

When students from different disciplinary backgrounds are engaging in MGW, differences in their knowledge also make it more difficult for students to communicate effectively (Popov et al., 2012).

Example 3.8j

I03 [Leo]: “… even though we have same background, we can have different kind of perspective like I’ve been here almost a year and right now they understand how I talk, how I communicate so it’s easier for them to understand butmy friend from the same country as me, if he use English, we end up in a different understanding because our language is slightly changed based on our class, but if I use my own language, it’s fine but if we try to discuss something in English, somehow we end up a bit …we completely have different perspectives about English, he’s from supply chain and I'm from surface management, it’s a different world and we have a different understanding of the terms and meaning, so I have to explain in Indonesian to that person.”

As Leo pointed out (Example 3.8j), when talking in English to people from the same home country, such as his co-national friend who was studying in a different

175 subject area, difficulties in understanding each other tended to be more because they might use different sets of vocabulary when they were conversing, which could be built around the subjects they studied. In that situation, he would “have to explain in Indonesian”.

In this part, many different communication styles were documented by participants: different usage of silence in a conversation; degree of directness and assertiveness used to convince other people; strategies used to get a turn to speak in a group discussion; speed and flow of conversation; the loss of meaning in translation when people are communicating in a second language. When working in groups, the influence of these subtle components of interactions are not evident to everyone. Even when students start to pay attention to them, adjustments can require skills that take time to develop and which require practice. For example, for the students who are used to being extremely assertive and direct, how much less direct should they be in order that other group members feel less overpowered? For students who are not used to several seconds of silence in a conversation, at what point should they take their turn without being perceived as bluntly interrupting their interlocutor? Some form of support in helping students understand and deal with such issues would have facilitated a better MGW environment.