Secretariado de Tecnologías para Apoyo a la Docencia. tad@ugr.es

1. CG Workshop on ICT & Student MobilityLanguage obstacles IDomingo Sánchez-Mesa(University of Granada) Secretariado de Tecnologías para Apoyo a la Docencia. tad@ugr.es

2. AGENDA • ¿Language differences: obstacles or assets? • Towards a real implementation of the language management • principle (a concept coined by Jose Lambert). • Some observations on the internationalization of universities • and the challenges of ICT and e-Learning. • A multilingual international blended course: • Literature & Film (EUNITE).

3. Universities in a glocal world • Higher Education Institutions look for new partners, trying to • take an advantageous position in the competition market of • education, which immediately links to the “language” market. • This reminds us of the paradox at the basis of the “Republique des Lettres” • (Casanova): the more national-oriented your literature (education) gets, the more • visible it becomes from the point of view of the international community. • Universities provide services to emerging multicultural societies • (without having to attract foreign students). Heterogeneity is the • starting point (even under the laws of the nation-state language • policies). • National HEI must follow the steps of the European convergence • (Bologna process).

4. Language as indicator of internationalization • The approach to language/s in ICT based distance learning is • probably the best indicator for checking our readiness. • How’s the everyday life of a mobile student/researcher/teacher in • a foreign academic environment? (Before and after). • “We” are supposed to provide the “experts” in language/s and in • culture/s and cultural discourses (artistic or non artistic) . • But we are also excellent representatives of the national-state…

5. ARE UNIVERSITIES READY FOR EFFICIENT INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION?

6. Some start-up hypothesis • The model of “national languages” is dominating the • “universe-cities” (J. Lambert), originally international. • The concept of language is changing, due to the globalisation • process and the mobility of communication, individuals, goods, • and the shaping of virtual societies. • Internet and the website communication is gaining ground • rapidly in competition with traditional verbal communication. • The Foreign student population must not be reduced to Erasmus • Students (who may not be considered properly students of the host • institution).

7. Screening WEBSITES A survey made by H. Agarez Medeiros & J. Lambert (CEVU) • Websites are innovative components of the redefinition • of universities in the new international landscapes. • Internet and digital media are less subject to “territory” and • to the nation-state principles (than “printed” communication). • Theoretically, universities resort to websites to attract new • partners and provide a higher degree of interaction at all levels. • The corpus: 50 websites from 10 countries (France, Belgium, • Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Germany, UK, Holland, Denmark). • The analysis drives on a descriptive approach.

8. Screening WEBSITES Looking for • Which language/s are being used? • Is any explicit/special space devoted to international/mobile population? • Is this information (explicitly/implicitly) linked with instructions about • language/s used, either at the university or at the international programmes? • Is there any explicit discussion of the approach to language(s) –as a • handicap or a stimulus-? • Is (foreign/national) language teaching announced as a specific strategy in • view of (new) needs? • Is the actual use of ICT resources, including Internet, part of the • information provided? • Is there any reference to the Bologna Declaration as a stimulus for a • reshaping of academic language culture?

9. Screening WEBSITES Main results • Universities used to stick to the nation state monolingual language policy. • They have not explicitly revised this (national) language policy from the • perspective of Bologna declarations and the bachelor/masters curricula revision. • But they have revised their approach to language in the Internet, though • never in a explicit nor research based model. • The same situation prevails concerning internal use of ICT resources. • The innovative bilingual/multilingual models is quite top-bottom oriented • and hardly interactive.

10. Screening WEBSITES Main results II • The official use of ICT is hardly interactive as long as the language • component is shaped on the traditional models from the nation-state era. • The link between the 24 hour life of mobile students and academic • authorities is largely underveloped (do language proficiency of students • and staffmeet the official requirements?). • In almost all cases real bi(multi)lingualism is simulated rather than real • andwebsites are not simply/just translated. • Websites and most of other ICT resources at universities are rather • top-down kind of communication which doesn’t show much about the • actual use of languages in campus.

11. Screening WEBSITES Provisional conclusion If language treatment / management is a handicap rather than an asset of the academic cyberspace, two questions remain: 1st. How Internet can be better used to contribute to the reinvention of universities as universal-cities. 2nd. Which strategies / models for verbal communication may help to shift from the idea of language as a barrier, to language/s variety and combination as an asset?

12. Screening WEBSITES Recommendations (EU) • Special accreditation to multilingual competencies and diplomas. • Virtual Erasmus environments may be implemented on the basis • of the possibilities opened by ICT based learning. • Traditional Erasmus schemes may benefit from virtual environments • for a better preparation and training before physical mobility. • Different language models can be worked out for ICT based • curricula, especially for the sake of a better integration of mobile • population and virtual learning communities.

13. Screening WEBSITES Recommendations (Universities) • A better integration of traditional and virtual mobility programmes. • (which has consequences on the organization of academia). • The progressive and proactive integration of ICT in the academia • must be more research oriented and supported. • More explicit links and rewards may be made between ICT innovation • and the strategic principle of life-long-learning. • Integration of language management into the quality assessment. • Special investments in multilingual web-writing and web translations. • Stimulate bottom-up interactive designs (local research on ICT learning • applications). • Avoid the “window dressing” use of ICT (keeping the world apart…)

14. Possible models /solutions • “Lingua franca”. • Translation (“to be or not to be”). • Automatic translation. • Interpretation (synchronous communication). • Translation of verbal written materials. • Multilingual approach (combination of various formulas).

15. Language management • Different from the “language policy” principle (more attached • to national identities and to ethnolinguistic democracy). • There is no “a priori” principle or recommendation, nor a • a priori rules to be applied for the sake of efficiency in virtual • environments. • The only prevailing rule is efficient communication. • It is not top-down oriented but based on research on users / • actors competencies and needs. • It takes into account differences between active and passive, • written and oral language skills, individual and collective profiles, timing, • technological environments, etc.

16. A case-study EUNITE 2002-2004 • Teaching staff: Jan Baetens (KULeuven) & • Domingo Sánchez-Mesa (Granada). • Institutions: Institute for Cultural Studies • (Romance Philology Studies, KUL) & Literary Theory • (Universidad de Granada). • Students: 30 in 2002; 42 in 2003 (24 at Leuven & • 18 at Granada); and 33 in 2004 (20 & 13)= 108. • Technical Staff: 6 (4 at Leuven, 2 at Granada). • Gest lecturers: 5 at Granada (writers, film-makers, • including Jan Baetens) 2004: cross mobility of both teachers. 2Groups, 2 traditions, 4 languages

20. Academic Goals. Content approaches. • the specificity of the cinematographic object • [film and communication studies]; a critical approach. • classic and modern approaches to film adaptation • [comparative literature and literary theories]. • the enquiry concerning the gradual passage from • first idea to final product —storyboard, scenario, film—; • [film studies]. • the discussions on the representation of the other • [cultural studies].

21. Progress from EUNITE 2002 to 2003. • Changes in content: reduction of the workload; • enquiry in the comparison between the Belgium and • the Spanish context (film industry, adaptation market, etc.); • • system of evaluation: collaborative work in mixed teams • editing of the essays in the forum section of the course • from the technical p.o.v., inclusion of video-clips; • use of the 2nd videoconference for putting up the team • work for the assignments and presenting the state of them; • a more intensive use of the forum (707 entries; more than • twice the activity of 2002, which was also the more active • course at the Galatea platform that year).

22. The Pre-production of the course • On-line & f2f discussion by teaching staff on the contents of the units, the texts/films to be analyzed and the calendar of sessions. • Translation of the verbal materials at the “course section”. • Updating and editing of the course after the first year.

23. How to start up? • Presentation of the course goals, syllabus, working methodology and evaluation system. • Initial training in the use of the learning platform. • Screening of ICT skills and foreign language proficiency. • Agreements on language management principles. • Distribution of assignments.

24. Students’ Tasks • Reading and assimilation of written materials • (online texts) • Consulting videos or graphic materials. • Solving of problems or practical cases. • Self-evaluation exercises. • Periodical participation in forums and chats. • Collaborative preparation of the assignments • Writing of essays. • Contact hours (introductory or final f2f sessions). • Videoconferences. • Reading and periodical assimilation of glossaries.

25. Language Management • Translation of the verbal material of the Course • in three languages: French, English & Spanish. • Previous screening (no group is homogenous) of • participants and joint decisions about when • to use how many languages. • Multilingual communication during videoconferences • & at the forum. • Monolingual strategies at the forum and in chats. • Agreement on language/s for writing the assignments.

26. Motivation towards a real interaction within both groups • through the learning interface. • The establishment of the assignments. • Moderating of the discussions. TOP DOWN STIMULI

27. Students established their learning rythm. • They took the lead during videoconferences. • They worked intensively on peer to peer basis. • They criticize teachers’ views more freely. • They submitted a final evaluation which was posted at the forum • and becomes a key guide for future editions of the course. BOTTOM UP

28. Students’ evaluation • The majority felt that they had learnt more or less • the same but in a different way (critical ¿?). • Some technical aspects of the learning platform. • The level of compromise demanded by the • multilingual design of the course. • Occasional gaps of synchronicity in the calendar. • The excessive workload of the course. It’s better to • concentrate on fewer cases/ texts / films and bring • them to deeper analysis. The critical

29. The students´evaluation: the positive “Working in group by using chat & forum goes faster than having to meet everyone in person everytime you want to work in the paper and the information is located on one same site and stays available for every member of the group” (Lobke Vermote) “The co-operation from a distance really makes you consider “relevance” at what you say” (Kristen Lindemans). “A totally new experience! I enjoyed working in group. And it certainly was good for me that I had to express myself in English (as I am a German student). Furthermore I really enjoyed the task we had for our paper, making a storyboard gave me the oportunity to be creative in a way that is rather rare at university” (Lynn Beernaert).

30. The students´evaluation: the positive “I find stimulating that we work simultaneuosly with students of other countries on quite non usual contents and problems. The use of Internet also introduces some fresh air into the traditional teaching system”. (Spanish student, Granada). “A great means of communication and opening up discussion and a real success (one which I could never have expected) seems to me the forum, which goes home with the Golden Globe for Course Tool. I suppose the course of Film and Literature is evolving to one of the most interesting ones in the curriculum and the fact that this evaluation is possible, only make that point more clear. Avanti…” (Stijn Gevaert, KUL). “To empower foreign language proficiency and our attitude to new ICT. The rich variety of cultural and scholar viewpoints and the chances to share all opinions” (Irish Erasmus at Granada).

31. Future landscape EU LLL CPD BOLOGNA ECTS Q Y Students mobility ERASMUS @RASMUS Teachers mobility U T TRADITIONAL F2F A L I

32. Conversion from virtual credits to ECTS (CEVUG) • 1 work hour = comprehensive study of contents • + complementary activities • 1 study hour of contents = 3/4 pages (1 credit= 30/40 pages) • 1 virtual credit = 10 hours of work • 1 ECTS = 25/30hours of study • 1 ECTS = 2,5 / 3 virtual credits

33. Dank u voor uw aandacht Merçi pour votre attention Tusen takk Thank you Grazie Tusind tak Danke schön Muchas gracias