talking cultures - guidance handbook

TALKING CULTURES: FOSTERING CROSS-CURRICULAR

INTERCULTURAL AWARENESS

PROTOTYPE GUIDANCE HANDBOOK

1

TALKING CULTURES: FOSTERING

CROSS-CURRICULAR INTERCULTURAL

AWARENESS

/PROTOTYPE GUIDANCE HANDBOOK 2012

Internationalisation

Diversity

Culture

Impact

Feedback

Reflection

Student Engagement

Intercultural

Learning

Community

Sustainability

Student Experience

Motivation

Transition

Interdisciplinary

Employability

Teaching

Cultural

Awareness

Transferability




2

Contents

1. Context 3

2. Introduction 3

3. Credit-bearing course 4

3.1 Course design, delivery and duration 4

3.2 Intended learning outcomes 4

3.3 Class size and profile 4

3.4 Assessment 4

3.5 Indicative marking criteria 5

3.6 Indicative essay marking criteria 6

3.7 Indicative presentations marking criteria 8

3.8 Indicative blog marking criteria 10

3.9 Classroom materials 10

3.10 Other considerations 11

4. Non-credit-bearing course 11

4.1 Course design, delivery and duration 11

4.2 Intended learning outcomes 12

4.3 Class size and profile 12

4.4 Classroom materials 12

5. Workshop 12




3

1. Context:

As one of the contributing projects to the UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA) and

the Higher Education Academy (HEA) jointly funded initiative ‘Connections: Pilot projects supporting

Internationalisation’, the Centre for English and World Languages (CEWL) at the University of Kent

established a pilot project between April and August 2012.

The project, seen to promote intercultural understanding and connections within the classroom in

order to enhance teaching and learning across the institution and beyond, involved the creation of a

focused short course in intercultural awareness, aimed at providing a holistic framework approach to

internationalisation. The project creators, recognising a need for a deeper sense of ‘acculturation’,

worked closely with students (both home and international) to develop their awareness of cultural

differences, prejudices and stereotypes and indeed to develop their empathy towards one another’s

cultural heritage.

The project also aims to deliver a transferable framework which will allow stakeholders across the

institution to consider how intercultural awareness as a theme might successfully be embedded into

established degree programmes (at all levels) to enhance the experience of both home and

international students as they live and study together in the contemporary HE environment.

The Talking Cultures project website (www.kent.ac.uk/talkingcultures) hosts a series of iterations of

this short course in intercultural awareness, together with associated teaching and learning materials

which aim to develop student engagement and integration with fellow students within a learning and

teaching setting.

2. Introduction:

This handbook is designed to act as a practical guidance tool for colleagues wishing to make use of some or all of the resources developed and piloted through this intercultural awareness project and has been divided into core themes which reflect the deliverables of the project. The themes include a credit-bearing course, non-credit-bearing course and a single workshop. Within each of these core themes, users will find further information about key aspects of the associated theme, aimed at enabling practitioners to deliver these courses successfully within their own local teaching and learning environments. These aspects include:

Course design, delivery and duration

Intended learning outcomes

Class size and profile

Assessment

Indicative marking criteria

http://www.kent.ac.uk/talkingcultures




4

3. Credit bearing course:

3.1 Course design, delivery and duration:

The short, credit-bearing course has been designed as a 15 credit (7.5 ECTS) C level module, to run over 1 academic term, approximately 12 weeks. Students are expected to attend 3 hours of workshop sessions plus one hour ‘drop-in’ session per week and are also expected to complete a minimum of 8.5 hours per week guided self-study to add up to 150 hours in total.

The course designers envisage that the contact time during the workshop sessions associated with

the credit-bearing course, will be used to introduce topics and provide opportunities for practice,

discussion and feedback. Students should be given guided self-study tasks (examples of which can

be found at www.kent.ac.uk/talkingcultures) to further develop the skills and concepts introduced in

these workshop sessions. The intention is that these tasks will encourage students to develop

independent study skills as well as facilitating assessments.

The syllabus for the credit-bearing short course is available at:

http://www.kent.ac.uk/cewl/external/Talking-Cultures/?tab=creditbearing

3.2 Intended learning outcomes:

The intended learning outcomes are both general and specific and will encourage students to develop

stronger interpersonal and intercultural skills. In essence, students who successfully complete this

course should specifically have a greater understanding of the way in which people communicate

within and across social groups as well as of their own culture and themselves. They should also

more generally, be able to communicate ideas, problems and solutions, synthesise and evaluate

information obtained from discussions with others.

For a more comprehensive summary of the subject-specific and general intended learning outcomes

please see http://www.kent.ac.uk/cewl/external/Talking-Cultures/?tab=creditbearing

3.3 Class size and profile:

The course specification has been developed with small class numbers, approximately 12-16

students, in mind. The key challenge is to encourage a range of students from a number of different

nationalities to participate in the course. The wider the spread of nationalities, the better the

interaction and engagement with the material and course overall.

3.4 Assessment:

The method of assessment is through 100% coursework. The assessment is both independent and group work based, designed to thus encourage collaborative work within the group, to aid inter-group dynamics and intercultural communication engagement.

Further details articulating how the various assessments will be delivered can be found at: www.kent.ac.uk/talkingcultures








5

The following indicative summative assessment pattern is recommended:

Week No. Method of Assessment Contributing %

Week 8 Essay (1500 words) (individual) 40%

Week 12 Group project presentation (group)

30%

Submit in Week 12 Learner Journal (1500 words) (individual)

30%

3.5 Indicative marking criteria:

Institutions are encouraged to apply their own marking criteria schemes to the above assessment

patterns which meet both local learner needs and quality assurance standards. However, some

indicative guidelines are noted below.

3.6 Indicative essay marketing criteria:

Marks are awarded to students with consideration of the following areas: demonstration of knowledge

acquired; logical structure and coherence; critical analysis and overall presentation (in terms of

accuracy and appropriateness of writing and referencing and citation).

Suggested criteria for awarding marks under these key areas are noted on the following page. Please

note these are indicative and should not be used without due consideration of local contexts.

TALKING CULTURES: FOSTERING CROSS-CURRICULAR INTERCULTURAL AWARENESS


6

Main

categories <30% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-100%

Demonstration of

knowledge acquired

Little or no relevant

knowledge

demonstrated.

No evidence of

reading from

relevant sources.

Limited relevant

knowledge of the

subject in question.

Limited evidence of

reading from

relevant sources.

Knowledge

demonstrated at a

basic level.

Sufficient reading of

relevant academic

sources for

acquisition of

knowledge at a

basic level.

Clear demonstration

of knowledge but

with some gaps or

lack of focus.

Evidence that

relevant academic

sources have been

accessed.

Good demonstration

of relevant

knowledge, only

minor gaps or short

passages not

focused.

Relevant academic

sources well

covered, with

evidence of going

beyond minimum.

Very firm grasp of

knowledge

demonstrated,

comprehensive

coverage.

Excellent coverage

of relevant academic

sources, plus clear

initiative resulting in

further study.

Demonstrates a

level of knowledge

clearly beyond

normal expectations.

Very considerable

enterprise to read

relevant academic

sources and

thoroughness

displayed.

Logical structure

and coherence

Very little or no

organisation, no

logical conclusions,

no examples to

support argument.

Some information

summarised, weak

basis for

conclusions, little

use of appropriate

examples to support

argument.

Basic overview

provided with limited

support for

conclusions, some

use of appropriate

examples to support

argument.

Essential information

summarised with

identifiable coherent

argument leading to

conclusions,

appropriate

examples used to

support arguments.

Essential information

clearly summarised,

substantiated

arguments leading

to logical

conclusions, well

chosen and

explained use of

appropriate

examples to support

arguments.

Good summary of

information, well

developed and

substantiated

arguments,

excellently drawn

conclusions,

excellently chosen

and explained use of

appropriate

examples to support

arguments.

Excellent, coherent

overview,

conclusions very

clear and

substantiated with

no flaws in

argument, use of

appropriate

examples to support

arguments shows

rigour and originality.

TALKING CULTURES: FOSTERING CROSS-CURRICULAR INTERCULTURAL AWARENESS


7

Main

categories

Sub

categories <30% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-100%

Critical analysis

Little or no analysis,

even at a superficial

level.

Superficial

application of critical

analysis, work

largely descriptive.

Limited use of critical

analysis, much of

work descriptive.

Some application of

critical analysis,

limited resort to pure

description.

Clear application of

critical analysis, with

a predominance of

analysis over

description.

Very good

application of critical

analysis, leading to

an effective analysis

of the question.

Excellent application

of critical analysis,

involving exploration

beyond the standard

syllabus.

Pre

sent

atio

n

Acc

urac

y an

d ap

prop

riate

ness

of

writ

ing

Very poorly written.

Mistakes

predominate,

making the message

difficult to

understand.

Inappropriate style,

no apparent proof

reading.

Poorly written.

Mistakes in English

provide a definite

hindrance to the

reader’s

understanding, little

care shown.

Adequately written.

There may be an

appreciable number

of mistakes in

English, or a

confusing style, but

the reader will

understand the

writer’s intentions.

Reasonable care

show, but

typographical errors

still present.

Competently written.

English, though not

perfect, will be easily

comprehensible and

will support the

writer’s intentions.

Clear evidence of

care and proof

reading, occasional

errors.

Well written. Only

occasional minor

errors. Considerable

care in presentation

show.

Very well written.

Writer’s intentions

enhanced by the

style and accuracy

of the writing. Only

the most minor of

errors.

Excellently written.

Style and accuracy

convey complex

ideas effectively.

Great care in

presentation, no

errors.

Ref

eren

cing

and

Cita

tion

No serious attempt

to include references

in any form.

Sources mentioned,

but not clearly

delineated. May

contain an

unreferenced and

limited bibliography.

Sources referenced,

but incompletely.

Adequate reference

list, but with some

errors and

omissions.

Most sources clearly

referenced. Serious

attempt to use

correct referencing.

Largely complete

reference list.

Clear, correct

referencing, perhaps

with not complete

coverage.

Clear, correct

referencing, covering

all that would be

expected.

Clear, correct,

comprehensive

referencing, going

beyond normal

expectations.




8

3.7 Indicative presentations marketing criteria: Marks are awarded to students in the following areas: presentation skills (40%); linguistic features (40%) and interactive communication (20%). Suggested criteria for awarding marks under these key areas are noted below:

Presentation Skills

36-40 90 – 100%

Highly competent and coherent presentation. Framing, signalling and linking are all of an extremely sophisticated level. Presentation is highly original in approach and use of examples and contains analysis of great depth based largely on candidate’s own ideas. Presentation is delivered*1 extremely confidently in an appropriately academic style

32-35 80 – 89%

Particularly cohesive presentation. Sophisticated and varied use of framing, signalling and linking devices throughout. Presentation is fairly original and contains analysis of great depth based to some extent on candidate’s own ideas. Presentation is delivered* confidently in an appropriately academic style. Illustrative techniques are used skilfully and enhance the listener’s understanding and enjoyment.

28-31 70 – 79%

Very coherent presentation. All points are intelligently linked and well developed. Full and effective use of framing, signalling and linking. Analysis of considerable depth and originality, containing some elements of candidate’s own ideas. Delivery* is very competent, engaging and appropriately academic in style. Illustrative techniques are used proficiently & confidently

24-27 60 – 69%

Structure of the presentation set out in a full and clear manner and all elements of the task clearly achieved. Framing, signalling and linking used correctly throughout, though not always in a completely natural way. Contains some originality and analysis of reasonable depth as well as description. A competent, engaging and suitably academic delivery*. Illustrative techniques are used effectively, integrated into and supporting the main argument.

20-23 50 – 59%

Structure of the presentation well set out and all elements of the task achieved. Framing, signalling and linking used in an appropriate way, though noticeably contrived at times. Some analysis but gist of presentation descriptive. Delivery* is competent but there may be some hesitancy or rushing. Presentation is largely academic in style. Illustrative techniques add to the listeners understanding of the topic, but are possibly contrived at times

16-19 40 – 49%

Satisfactory structuring of the presentation. Framing, signalling and linking appropriate, although applied in an unsystematic and fragmented manner. Presentation largely descriptive, although some attempt made at analysis. Delivery* may be hesitant or rushed in places and there are lapses in academic style. Illustrative techniques are used, but may be irrelevant or poorly integrated

12-15 30 – 39%

Structure of the presentation delineated and main points discernible but very little framing, signalling and linking. Presentation dominated by description. Little or no analysis. Candidate may rely heavily on notes or memorisation or the presentation may follow the structure of a lecture or assignment too closely. Delivery* halting, very rushed or too informal. The meaning is obscured through lack of suitable illustrative techniques or, if used, may detract from the presentation

8-11 20 -29%

Elements of an appropriate structure infrequently discernible. Little or no framing, signalling or linking. Presentation based on unsystematic description of the topic. No analysis. Candidate may rely very heavily on notes or memorisation or the presentation may follow the structure of a lecture or assignment very closely. Delivery* lacks academic style and may break down. Total lack of illustrative techniques or presentation inadequate through over-reliance on them.

4-7 10 – 19%

No discernible structure recognisable. No framing, signalling or linking. Presentation largely incoherent and lacking in cohesion. Delivery* is inadequate and may break down. No attempt to use illustrative techniques

0-3 0 – 9%

(Almost) no attempt to fulfil the task made.

* Delivery includes speed, degree of confidence, volume, audience awareness, expressiveness (intonation, highlighting), use of notes, body language (eye

contact, facial expression, movement, gesture)




9

Linguistic Features

36-40

90 – 100%

Expert speaker: Fluent, precise, accurate. Full command of language with no noticeable inaccuracies. Sophisticated range of grammatical structures. Language use is appropriate to situation/genre. Very wide range of vocabulary. Complete understanding. Non-intrusive non-native accent.

32-35

80 – 89%

Impressive speaker: Full command of language with only occasional inaccuracies. Occasional misunderstanding in unfamiliar situations. Can handle complex language well. Few limitations to range of language available. Language is appropriate to situation. Mother tongue accent will be noticeable, but does not impair comprehension.

28-31

70 – 79%

Very good speaker: Effective command of language. Able to manipulate complex structures with occasional inaccuracies. A few misunderstandings but they do not impede communication. Has a good range of structures and vocabulary and uses them appropriately. Some inappropriacies. Fairly obvious non-native accent, but no real unintelligibility.

24-27

60 – 69%

Good speaker: Good use of language and can generally handle complex structures well. Can use a variety of alternative structures and vocabulary to express shades of meaning, but not always totally appropriately. Use of grammar accurate and vocabulary generally appropriate. Obvious non-native accent may affect clarity of pronunciation but this does not impede understanding.

20-23

50 – 59%

Competent speaker: Use of language generally effective, despite some inaccuracies and misunderstandings. Can use and understand fairly complex language reasonably accurately. Can rephrase, but sometimes with difficulty. Reasonable range of vocabulary and structures, but sometimes finds expressing more complex ideas difficult. Pronunciation may sometimes cause problems but does not obscure the message.

16-19

40 – 49%

Adequate speaker: Able to express meaning with reasonable clarity and functions fairly well in predictable situations, but has a limited range of lexis/structures. Misunderstandings and inaccuracies occur (usually in less predictable situations). May attempt to use more complex structures but not always appropriately or accurately. Pronunciation may require a degree of concentration on the part of the listener.

12-15

30 – 39%

Modest speaker: Partial command of the language. Can cope with overall meaning, but often misses details. Can use a few complex structures, but makes frequent grammatical or lexical errors. Attempts to rephrase often abortive. May have a reasonable passive vocabulary but little active use. Intention is not always clear. Frequent inappropriate use of language. Pronunciation problems may obscure the message at times.

8-11

20 -29%

Weak speaker: Can express meaning in predictable situations but cannot use complex structures. Frequent problems in understanding and expression. Slow to perform. Use of language often inappropriate. Cannot rephrase. Vocabulary very restricted. Pronunciation may frequently obscure the message.

4-7

10 – 19%

Extremely limited speaker: Can only express very basic concepts and meanings of an everyday nature. Understanding and expression frequently break down. Generally inaccurate and inappropriate use of language. Pronunciation problems may make comprehension almost impossible.

0-3

0 – 9% No, or almost no coherent language produced, making assessment very difficult.




10

Interactive Communication

18-20 90 – 100%

Expert speaker: Able to interact naturally and fluently, taking an active part in the development of the discussion. Able to initiate, ask for clarification, expand on responses coherently, and direct the discussion. Could hardly be improved.

16-17 80 – 89%

Impressive speaker: Able to interact confidently and with ease, responding to questions with relevant contributions in an appropriate manner. Can initiate, respond and direct the discussion.

14-15 70 – 79%

Very good speaker: Able to interact effectively and confidently, responding appropriately. Makes a positive contribution to the dialogue. There may be some hesitation, to formulate ideas.

12-13 60 – 69%

Good speaker: Able to interact effectively by responding appropriately to questions. Able to reformulate contributions when necessary. Hesitations may occur but this does not impair the communication.

10-11 50 – 59%

Competent speaker: Responses to questions are generally appropriate and prompt. There may be some hesitation, but this does not generally interfere with communication. The discussion may not be totally coherent.

8-9 40 – 49%

Adequate speaker: Able to maintain interaction, although lack of comprehension may necessitate repetition of questions. Hesitation may affect fluency of interaction. The discussion is not coherent at times.

6-7 30 – 39%

Modest speaker: Continuous communication is difficult to maintain. Questions may not be understood. Responses may be very short. There may be long hesitations. The discussion is often not coherent.

4-5 20 -29%

Weak speaker: Communication may be only intermittently maintained. Questions may have to be repeated more than once. Responses may be minimal and/or inappropriate.

2-3 10 – 19%

Extremely limited speaker: Some understanding and ability to respond, but these are too limited to develop a meaningful interaction.

0-1 0 – 9%

Virtually no meaningful involvement in the interaction

3.8 Indicative blog marking criteria:

Practitioners are encouraged to build their own marking criteria for the blog with due consideration to be given to the local educational context. Themes appropriate to this assessment pattern could also be drawn from the indicative marking criteria noted for the essay. Overarching categories for practitioner consideration could include:

Demonstration of knowledge and content of blog

Evidence of research and careful evaluation of sources

Originality, use, accuracy and appropriacy of language

To find out more about how to set up a blog for the learners, please visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA4s3wN_vK8

3.9 Classroom materials:

Materials to accompany the course specification are available at:

http://www.kent.ac.uk/cewl/external/Talking-Cultures/Materials.html

The materials are designed to be interactive, incorporating interactive media and technology and mirror the weekly syllabus. Lessons follow a variety of structures most usually with teacher input (via a PowerPoint presentation), followed by student activity, (via the accompanying individual and pair/small group based activities). Extension activities (with versions for both the teacher and the learner) are also available for some of the lessons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA4s3wN_vK8





11

3.10 Other considerations may be appropriate for practitioners:

Undertake some background research to ensure familiarisation of basic cultural distinctions

Become familiar with the IT skills featured within this short course, e.g. how to set up blogs. Teachers will need to ensure they monitor the blog throughout the duration of the course and could use the tutorials week to provide an opportunity to check in with each student on their blog development as well as ascertaining the learner’s individual contribution to the group-based presentations.

Visit week 12 materials http://www.kent.ac.uk/cewl/external/Talking-Cultures/Materials.html?tab=w-12 to view videos on ‘what makes a good presentation?’ and ‘how to use PowerPoint and Prezi’

The course does not specifically focus on the development of academic skills such as how to write or structure an essay, or presentation. There is an expectation that students would obtain this ‘input’ from other support areas outside of the module itself.

4. Non-Credit-bearing course:

4.1 Course design, delivery and duration:

The short course is also available to be delivered as non-credit-bearing. It follows the same structure as the credit-bearing iteration, with the exception of the assessment pattern, which has been removed. However, in some cases, students may still wish to follow the credit-bearing iteration of the course and participate in the assessment but not necessarily carry the credit forward as part of their formal degree programme.

Students who do not however wish to undertake any formal assessment could still, for example, be encouraged to participate in the blog activity to aid their intercultural learning both within and outside the classroom.

As with the credit-bearing course, the non-credit bearing course has also been designed to run over 1

academic term, approximately 12 weeks. Students are expected to attend a combination of workshop,

drop-in and self-study sessions. Contact time during the workshop sessions could be used to

introduce topics and provide opportunities for practice, discussion and feedback. Students should be

given guided self-study tasks (examples of which can be found at www.kent.ac.uk/talkingcultures) to

further develop the skills and concepts introduced in workshop sessions. The intention is that these

tasks encourage students to develop independent study skills.

The course designers envisage that the non-credit-bearing iteration of this course could run in parallel with the credit-bearing versions, with both groups working alongside each other as the course is delivered. This would bring benefits in terms of resource allocation and timetabling, as well as enabling as diverse a group as possible (in terms of nationality, ethnicity, level of academic study, subject background etc) to come together within a collaborative learning environment. However, ensuring all students are fully committed to the course and are fully motivated, will be a challenge for the teacher if the courses run in parallel.

The syllabus for the non-credit bearing short course is available at:

http://www.kent.ac.uk/cewl/external/Talking-Cultures/?tab=noncreditbearing

http://www.kent.ac.uk/cewl/external/Talking-Cultures/Materials.html?tab=w-12

http://www.kent.ac.uk/cewl/external/Talking-Cultures/Materials.html?tab=w-12


http://www.kent.ac.uk/cewl/external/Talking-Cultures/?tab=noncreditbearing




12

4.2 Intended learning outcomes:

The intended learning outcomes are both general and specific and will encourage students to develop stronger interpersonal and intercultural skills and mirror those noted for the credit-bearing iteration of the course.

4.3 Class size and profile:

As with the credit-bearing course, the non-credit-bearing short course specification has been

developed with small class numbers, approximately 12-16 students, in mind. The key challenge is to

encourage a range of students from a number of different nationalities to participate in the course.

The wider the spread of nationalities, the better the interaction and engagement with the material and

course overall.

4.4 Classroom materials:

Materials to accompany the non-credit-bearing course specification are available at:


The materials are designed to be interactive, incorporating interactive media and technology and mirror the weekly syllabus. Lessons follow a variety of structures most usually with teacher input (via a PowerPoint presentation), followed by student output, (via the accompanying individual and pair/small group based activities). Extension activities (with versions for both the teacher and the learner) are also available for some of the lessons.

5. Workshop:

The workshop draws on the underlying principles featured within the credit/non-credit-bearing iterations of the intercultural awareness course and aims to offer these principles within a more condensed, introductory setting. It is envisaged that this approach will enable users to encourage wider participation from across their institutions, from both within the academic schools and the total student body (home and international).

The workshop has been designed as a single, stand-alone lesson and is intended to run for two and a half hours, although these are only suggested timings. The workshop could also be further divided into two one hour sessions, run concurrently.

The workshop will explore the themes of what culture is and why is it important and also introduce participants to the notion of ethnocentrism (from Greek ‘ethnos’, meaning people, when you judge or comment on someone else’s culture from your own cultural perspective and describe that perspective through your own, local, cultural perspective).

Students are encouraged to work both on their own and in small groups to explore these themes and are given time at the end to reflect on their own approach to culture and cultural interpretations.

Resources to accompany the workshop can be found at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/cewl/external/Talking-

Cultures/?tab=workshop

For any further details or queries please contact [email protected]


http://www.kent.ac.uk/cewl/external/Talking-Cultures/?tab=workshop

http://www.kent.ac.uk/cewl/external/Talking-Cultures/?tab=workshop

mailto:[email protected]