Projet 1.2.3 Rapport d'atelier n° 2/2001 Compétence en

EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MODERN LANGUAGES CENTRE EUROPEEN POUR LES LANGUES VIVANTES

Nikolaiplatz 4, A-8020 Graz, Tel.: +43-316-32 35 54, Fax: +43-316-32 35 54 4, e-mail: [email protected]

Programme d'activités à moyen terme du CELV 2000-2003 Projet 1.2.3 Rapport d'atelier n° 2/2001 Compétence en communication interculturelle dans la formation d'enseignants (Graz, Autriche, 2-7 avril 2001) Coordinatrice: Ildikó Lázár Co-animateurs: Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich, Rafn Kjartansson, Liljana Skopinskaja

En 1994, sur l’initiative de l’Autriche et des Pays-Bas, avec le soutien particulier de la France, huit Etats ont créé le Centre européen pour les langues vivantes (CELV) sous la forme d’un Accord partiel élargi du Conseil de l’Europe1. Ce Centre devait devenir un lieu stimulant les échanges de vues et la réflexion pour répondre aux missions et aux défis spécifiques des Etats dans les années à venir; il devait jouer un rôle central dans le processus d’intégration européenne. Après trois années très prometteuses de période probatoire (1995-1998), le Comité des Ministres a confirmé la continuation des activités du Centre dans sa Résolution (98) 11. Actuellement, 31 Etats membres adhèrent à l’Accord partiel. L’objectif du Centre de Graz est d’offrir - généralement sous la forme d’ateliers, de colloques, de réseaux de recherche et de développement et d’autres réunions d’experts - une plate-forme et un lieu de rencontre aux responsables de politiques linguistiques, aux experts en didactique et en méthodologie, aux formateurs d’enseignants, aux auteurs de manuels et aux autres démultiplicateurs dans le domaine des langues vivantes. L’objectif général du CELV vise à mettre en oeuvre les politiques linguistiques et à promouvoir les innovations dans le domaine de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage des langues vivantes. Les publications résultent de projets de recherche et développement mis en place dans le cadre des activités du premier programme à moyen terme du CELV (2000-2003).

1 A ce jour, 31 Etats membres adhèrent à l’Accord partiel élargi du CELV: l’Albanie, la Principauté d’Andorre, l’Arménie, l’Autriche, la Bosnie-Herzégovine, la Bulgarie, la Croatie, Chypre, la République tchèque, l’Estonie, la Finlande, la France, l’Allemagne, la Grèce, la Hongrie, l’Islande, la Lettonie, le Liechtenstein, la Lituanie, le Luxembourg, Malte, les Pays-Bas, la Norvège, la Pologne, la Roumanie, la République slovaque, la Slovénie, l’Espagne, la Suède, la Suisse, “l’ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine”.

Programme d'activités à moyen terme du CELV 2000-2003 Projet 1.2.3 Rapport d'atelier n° 2/2001 Compétence en communication interculturelle dans la formation d'enseignants (Graz, Autriche, 2-7 avril 2001) Coordinatrice: Ildikó Lázár Co-animateurs: Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich, Rafn Kjartansson, Liljana Skopinskaja

© Octobre 2001

Le Centre européen pour les langues vivantes (CELV) a fait paraître de nombreuses publications portant sur les approches innovantes dans le domaine de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage des langues vivantes. Les opinions exprimées dans le présent document ne reflètent pas forcément la politique du Comité de direction ou du Secrétariat de l’Accord partiel élargi du CELV. Le rapport peut être téléchargé gratuitement du site Internet du CELV: http://www.ecml.at Toute demande de reproduction ou de traduction doit être adressée au Directeur exécutif du Centre européen pour les langues vivantes, Conseil de l’Europe, Nikolaiplatz 4, A-8020 Graz, Autriche.

Centre européen pour les langues vivantes (CELV) Atelier 2/2001

3

Sommaire 1. Buts et analyse ...............................................................................................................5

2.1. Buts et objectifs de l'atelier....................................................................................6 2.2. Présentations et séances de discussions en groupes...............................................6

3. Réseaux mis en place à la fin de l'atelier .......................................................................8

4. Evaluation générale de l'atelier par les participants ......................................................9

Annexes (uniquement en anglais):

Appendix 1: Workshop schedule .................................................................................13

Appendix 2: Definitions of key concepts By Liljana Skopinskaja...............................15

Appendix 3: Culture-related activities in the language classroom: an intercultural study By Ildikó Lázár ........................................................................................19

Appendix 4: Case studies By Rafn Kjartansson ................................................................................35

Appendix 5: Pilot modules ...........................................................................................39

Appendix 6: Cultural content in coursebooks By Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich.........................................................47

Appendix 7: Exams vs curricula By Rafn Kjartansson ................................................51

Appendix 8: Assessment of intercultural communicative competence By Liljana Skopinskaja ............................................................................55

Appendix 9: Selected bibliography / Bibliographie sélective ......................................57

Appendix 10: Network plans..........................................................................................61

Appendix 11: Participants’ comments on the workshop................................................69

Appendix 12: List of participants / Liste des participants..............................................71

Appendix 13: Biographies..............................................................................................77

Centre européen pour les langues vivantes (CELV) 5 Atelier 2/2001

1. Buts et analyse Ce projet a pour origine un atelier sur l'enseignement réflexif (atelier n° 1/99) qui a eu lieu au Centre Européen pour les Langues Vivantes (CELV) à Graz du 23 au 27 février 1999. Pour assurer le suivi de cet atelier, une équipe de chercheurs (Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich − Pologne, Rafn Kjartansson − Islande, Ildikó Lázár − Hongrie, et Liljana Skopinskaja − Estonie) ont décidé d'étudier la question de l'éveil interculturel dans la formation des enseignants et l'enseignement de l'anglais langue étrangère dans leur pays. Ce projet a été inclus dans le premier programme à moyen terme du CELV couvrant la période 2000 à 20031. Une étude sous forme de questionnaire a été menée dans les quatre pays mentionnés ci-dessus afin de voir si les enseignants en anglais incluent souvent des activités à dimension culturelle dans leur enseignement de l'anglais langue étrangère. Une analyse statistique des données collectées semble indiquer que la culture reste l'élément négligé dans le domaine de l'enseignement des langues. (Voir l'analyse détaillée des résultats de cette étude sous forme de questionnaire dans l'annexe 3.) En vue de compléter l'étude quantitative susmentionnée, cinq études de cas ont été menées dans chacun des quatre pays. Les études de cas comprenaient un entretien initial structuré sur la fréquence des même types d'activités à dimension culturelle dans la classe d'ALE, une séance de formation en communication interculturelle de 90 minutes et un entretien de suivi concernant les changements éventuels intervenus dans la perception par l'enseignant du rôle de la culture dans l'ALE. Les entretiens ont permis d'imaginer les raisons éventuelles pour lesquelles les activités à dimension européenne sont si rarement incorporées dans les programmes d’enseignement de la langue anglaise. Sur la base des études de cas, une des raisons principales semble être l'absence de formation en communication interculturelle dans le cadre de la formation des enseignants. (Voir la description des études de cas dans l'annexe 4.) Lors des deux dernières années, les quatre chercheurs ont conçu et enseigné des cours de formation en communication interculturelle de différente longueur dans le cadre de la formation initiale et/ou continue des enseignants en Estonie, Hongrie, Islande et Pologne. Les descriptions de ces modules pilotes se trouvent dans l'annexe 5. Actuellement, la compétence interculturelle n'est pas forcément l’une des matières incluse dans les programmes de formation des enseignants en Europe. Le choix du professeur dont il visite le cours est souvent le seul facteur qui détermine le fait qu'un enseignant en formation entende ou pas parler de compétence interculturelle. Néanmoins, il semble évident qu'il est très important d'augmenter la compréhension interculturelle, et l'incorporation de la compétence en communication interculturelle dans les programmes de formation des enseignants aurait un effet démultiplicateur bénéfique dans ce domaine. C'est pourquoi la première étape de ce processus serait peut-être de former partout en Europe les formateurs d'enseignants à accepter et à disséminer cette approche. C'est précisément dans cet esprit que notre équipe a décidé d'organiser un atelier central sur l’intégration de la compétence en communication interculturelle dans la formation initiale et continue des enseignants en langues, atelier destiné aux formateurs d'enseignants et aux mentors.

1 Pour plus de détails concernant les prévisions et le calendrier du projet, veuillez consulter les

descriptions de projets sur le site web du CELV (http://www.ecml.at).


2. Description de l'atelier 2.1. Buts et objectifs de l'atelier • présenter les résultats de la recherche afin de familiariser les participants au statut

actuel de l'enseignement de la langue et de la culture; • fournir aux participants à l'atelier une pratique intensive dans les activités d'éveil

interculturel et dans le développement de modules pilotes de formation des enseignants dans ce domaine;

• fournir des lignes directrices pour l'intégration de la compétence en communication

interculturelle dans les programmes de formation des enseignants; • donner des recommandations aux participants sur la façon d'obtenir le soutien des

universités et des autorités en vue d'inclure la compétence en communication interculturelle dans les conditions obligatoires pour l'obtention du diplôme d'enseignant en langues;

• mettre en place des réseaux (chacun étant coordonné par un membre de l'équipe) afin

de soutenir les participants, d’une part, dans la planification d’initiatives et dans l'élaboration de supports en vue d’intégrer des modules pilotes dans leurs programmes; et d'autre part, de les aider à se concentrer sur les modalités de dissémination de cette approche dans le domaine de l'enseignement des langues.

2.2. Présentations et séances de discussions en groupes L'atelier a été conçu de façon à ce que nos présentations informent les participants sur chacun des domaines d'intérêt spécifiques aux réseaux détaillés ci-après. Les présentations, des séances de discussions en groupes et des activités se sont alternées, afin de rendre l'atelier interactif et d’atteindre un équilibre entre théorie et pratique dans le domaine de la formation en communication interculturelle d'une manière bénéfique pour les participants. (Voir le calendrier de l'atelier dans l'annexe 1.) Conformément aux buts de l'atelier, la présentation des Définitions des concepts-clés (par Liljana Skopinskaja) le premier jour de l'atelier avait pour objectif de clarifier la signification des termes ‘culture’, ‘éveil culturel’ et ‘compétence en communication interculturelle’ avant de commencer des discussions sur ces thèmes lors des séances en groupes (cf. annexe 2). Une autre présentation le premier jour a montré les Résultats de l'étude sous forme de questionnaire (par Ildikó Lázár), dont le but était d'examiner à quelle fréquence les enseignants d’anglais incluent des activités à dimension culturelle dans les classes d'anglais afin de familiariser les participants avec le statut actuel de l'enseignement de la langue et de la culture dans les quatre pays concernés. Les résultats de cette étude sous forme de questionnaire semblent montrer que, bien qu'un séjour à l'étranger ait habituellement une influence positive sur la fréquence de l'utilisation par l'enseignant en classe de langue d'activités à dimension culturelle, la proportion d'enseignants qui incluent souvent des activités culturelles est largement plus importante parmi les enseignants qui ont été formés en éveil culturel ou en communication interculturelle. (Pour une analyse détaillée de ces résultats, voir l'annexe 3.)


Pendant la deuxième journée d'atelier, une présentation des Etudes de cas (par Rafn Kjartansson) a montré l'impact d'une brève séance de formation sur la perception par les enseignants de l'enseignement de la culture; cette initiative a également eu pour but de familiariser les participants avec nos conclusions concernant l'attitude des enseignants envers l'enseignement de la culture (cf. annexe 4 concernant les détails de cette étude qualitative). Nous avons également présenté, lors de cette journée, nos Modules pilotes (présentation par les quatre animateurs), c'est-à-dire quatre cours différents sur la communication interculturelle que chacun d'entre nous dispense dans sa propre institution de formation, afin de fournir des exemples d'incorporation de la compétence en communication interculturelle dans le programme de formation des enseignants. Parmi les cours décrits ont été présentés des cours brefs et longs, obligatoires et facultatifs, initiaux et continus (cf. annexe 5). La présentation concernant le Contenu culturel des manuels (par Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich) avait pour but d'attirer l'attention sur l'importance de la perspective interculturelle (ou souvent du manque de celle-ci) dans les supports d’enseignement. Après quelques exemples extraits de manuels français et anglais, la conclusion que nous avons tirée concernant le contenu culturel des manuels est que bien qu'ils ne fournissent pas un support suffisant à l'enseignement de la communication interculturelle, ils peuvent être utilisés de façon positive si les enseignants sont sensibilisés à l'importance de la compétence en communication interculturelle et s'ils sont formés à mieux utiliser et peut-être à modifier ou compléter les ressources actuellement disponibles (cf. annexe 6). Enfin, deux présentations ont eu lieu. Lors de la première présentation, les participants ont été informés des différences existant entre ce que les programmes nationaux exigent que les étudiants en langues soient capables de faire et ce qui est réellement testé et évalué lors des examens en langues (Examens contre programmes par Rafn Kjartansson et Ildikó Lázár, à l'annexe 7). La seconde intervention a brièvement résumé l'historique et les difficultés rencontrées lors de l'Evaluation de la compétence en communication interculturelle (par Liljana Skopinskaja, à l'annexe 8). Cette dernière présentation a été complétée par la description d’Anne Davidson Lund, une participante, du projet Leonardo da Vinci. Du point de vue pratique, le but des Activités introductives de rapprochement était de faire en sorte que les participants se présentent les uns aux autres en effectuant des activités qui ont aussi attiré l'attention sur les différences culturelles existant dans un groupe aussi multiculturel. La Séance de travail en groupes (menée par Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich), qui a eu lieu lors de la première après-midi de l'atelier, avait pour but d'aider les participants à mieux se connaître l'un l'autre ainsi qu'à discuter des facteurs favorisant ou défavorisant l'intégration de la compétence en communication interculturelle (CCI) dans l'enseignement des langues étrangères dans leurs pays respectifs. Les participants ont semblé convenir de la raison pour laquelle la CCI est un élément important des programmes de formation des enseignants, mais ils ont déterminé différents facteurs défavorables à l'incorporation de celle-ci dans leurs pays. Des enseignants par exemple, au lieu de s'impliquer dans cette question, peuvent se montrer réticents ou ne pas être conscients de son importance dans certains pays; et souvent, des supports supplémentaires ne sont pas facilement trouvables. De plus, les examens testent habituellement les quatre capacités, la grammaire et le vocabulaire; c'est pourquoi les étudiants, les enseignants et les parents attendent du programme qu'il ne se concentre que sur ces points. Enfin, le statut peu élevé des enseignants dans de nombreux pays n'aide pas à motiver les enseignants et les futurs enseignants en formation à expérimenter avec de nouvelles idées. La conclusion


principale de la séance semble être que le facteur crucial est la préparation initiale et continue de l'enseignant puisque son éveil et son attitude déterminent les procédures en classe et la place de CCI introduite dans l'enseignement de la langue étrangère. La séance Activités (menée par Ildikó Lázár) pendant la deuxième journée de l'atelier avait pour but de donner des pistes pratiques portant tant sur les types d'activités susceptibles d’accroître l'éveil interculturel que sur leur utilisation dans le cadre de la formation initiale ou continue des enseignants, dans des classes monolingues et monoculturelles ou multilingues et multiculturelles, afin de développer la compétence en communication interculturelle de l'enseignant ou de l'apprenant. Les deux dernières journées d'atelier ont été majoritairement consacrées à des séances en groupes mises en place afin d'aider les participants à concevoir un projet en relation avec la compétence en communication interculturelle - pertinence et chances de réalisation optimales dans les contextes nationaux devant caractériser chaque projet. A l'origine, les co-animateurs ont suggéré quatre thèmes de réseaux; tellement de participants se sont cependant inscrits pour la conception de cours et la dissémination que nous avons décidé de former six groupes de réseaux en tout, dont trois travailleront d'une manière ou d'une autre dans le domaine de la conception de cours et de la dissémination. (Cf. ci-après une brève description des groupes de réseaux et des informations relatives aux prévisions de chaque réseau dans l'annexe 10.) 3. Réseaux mis en place à la fin de l'atelier (Pour de plus amples informations sur les prévisions des réseaux, voir l'annexe 10.) Réseau 1 – Chercheurs (dans le domaine de la perception par les enseignants de la compétence en communication interculturelle dans l'enseignement de l'anglais et du français langues étrangères). Coordinatrice: Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich, Pologne. Porte-paroles: Dora Isaia, Chypre. Réseau 2 – Concepteurs de cours (élaboration d'un programme de formation continue des enseignants se concentrant sur la dimension interculturelle des formateurs d'enseignants en langues vivantes). Porte-paroles: Elisabeth Carpa, Andorre. Réseau 3 – Auteurs de supports (création et production d'unités d'éveil culturel applicables à grande échelle pour la formation initiale et continue des enseignants, basées sur et organisées conformément aux principes théoriques sous-jacents). Coordinatrice: Ildikó Lázár, Hongrie. Porte-paroles: Martina Huber-Kriegler, Autriche. Réseau 4 – Concepteurs de cours (développement d'un cours initial et continu comprenant un élément de formation en communication interculturelle). Coordinatrice: Ildikó Lázár, Hongrie. Porte-paroles: Erlendína Kristjansson, Islande. Réseau 5 – Evaluateurs dans le domaine de la compétence en communication interculturelle (élaboration de sujets d’intérêt central faisant l’objet d’une évaluation (contenu d'examen), conception d'une grille de spécifications commune et production de tests-modèles pour différents niveaux). Coordinateur: Rafn Kjartansson, Islande. Porte-paroles: Raymond Facciol, Malte.


Réseau 6 – Evaluateurs de manuels (développement de critères d'évaluation afin d'évaluer des supports d’enseignement actuellement employés du point de vue interculturel au niveau intermédiaire dans le cadre de l'enseignement secondaire et de la formation initiale des enseignants). Coordinatrice: Liljana Skopinskaja, Estonie. Porte-paroles: Karl Bauerfeind, Allemagne. Bien que deux journées de discussion et de préparation en réseau semblent une durée assez courte pour faire des prévisions à long terme, les présentations données par les six réseaux lors de la dernière journée d'atelier ont été très impressionnantes. Le travail envisagé semble pertinent, important et faisable. Les coordinateurs et les porte-paroles des six réseaux ont convenu d’une réunion à Budapest, en Hongrie, en décembre 2001 afin de présenter les résultats qui auront été atteints à cette date, de discuter de toute difficulté rencontrée et, en cas de besoin, de trouver ensemble des solutions. D'ici là, toutes les personnes concernées effectueront des recherches dans leurs institutions respectives et resteront en contact les unes avec les autres par courrier électronique et par l'intermédiaire du forum de discussion sur le site web du CELV. 4. Evaluation générale de l'atelier par les participants (Pour plus d’informations, voir l'annexe 11.) Le dernier jour de l'atelier, les participants ont été invités à remplir le formulaire d'évaluation de l'atelier du CELV. Vingt-trois formulaires d'évaluation nous ont été retournés. Les résultats semblent montrer que les participants ont tiré un bénéfice de l'atelier à la fois aux niveaux personnel et professionnel. Certains commentaires montrent que de nombreux participants auraient aimé plus de discussions en groupes et d'activités interculturelles, en particulier à la suite des présentations faites par les co-animateurs. Par ailleurs, d'autres participants ont fait remarquer qu'ils auraient préféré avoir plus d'informations dans des domaines en relation avec la compétence en communication interculturelle. Ces commentaires et d'autres encore mentionnés ci-après et dans l'annexe 11 montrent également que l'on trouve généralement des attentes très différentes au sein d'un groupe aussi hétérogène et multiculturel. Néanmoins, les participants ont été des auditeurs très attentifs lors des présentations; ils ont constitué des groupes enthousiastes et zélés afin de coopérer à la préparation des travaux de recherche et développement devant être menés au sein des groupes de réseaux au cours des deux prochaines années.


Annexes / Appendices Appendix 1: Workshop schedule / Calendrier de l'atelier (uniquement en anglais) Appendix 2: Definition of key concepts / Définition des concepts-clés (uniquement en anglais) Appendix 3: Culture-related activities in the language classroom: an

intercultural study / Activités à dimension culturelle dans les classes de langues: une étude interculturelle

(uniquement en anglais) Appendix 4: Case studies / Etudes de cas (uniquement en anglais) Appendix 5: Pilot modules / Modules pilotes (uniquement en anglais) Appendix 6: Cultural content in coursebooks / Contenu culturel des manuels (uniquement en anglais) Appendix 7: Exams vs curricula / Examens contre programmes (uniquement en anglais) Appendix 8: Assessment of intercultural communicative competence / Evaluation de la compétence en communication interculturelle (uniquement en anglais) Appendix 9: Selected bibliography / Bibliographie sélective Appendix 10: Network plans / Prévisions des réseaux (anglais et français) Appendix 11: Participants’ comments on the workshop / Commentaires des participants sur l'atelier (anglais et français) Appendix 12: List of participants / Liste des participants Appendix 13: Biographies (uniquement en anglais)


Appendix 1: Workshop schedule Monday, April 2nd Afternoon

Arrival of participants Informal no-host dinner

Tuesday, April 3rd Morning 9.30 – 10.00 10.00 – 11.00 11.00 – 11.30 11.30 – 12.30 Lunch Afternoon 14.00 – 15.30 15.30 – 16.00 16.00 – 18.00

Registration Official opening Introduction of the co-ordinator, the co-animators and the participants Break Presentation of research results (questionnaire study on the role of culture in FL education) Definitions of key concepts Break Group work: getting to know one another, posters, show and tell Reception at Town Hall

ECML authorities Lázár, Aleksandrowicz-Pedich, Kjartansson, Skopinskaja Participants Lázár Skopinskaja Aleksandrowicz-Pedich Participants

Wednesday, April 4th Morning 9.00 – 10.00 10.00 – 11.00 11.00 – 11.30 11.30 – 12.30 Lunch Afternoon 14.00 – 15.00 15.00 – 16.00 16.00 – 16.30 16.30 – 17.30

Presentation of case studies Pilot modules 1 Break Pilot modules 2 Assessment of intercultural competence Cultural content in coursebooks Break ICC activities and materials

Kjartansson (with contributions from the team) Aleksandrowicz-Pedich, Skopinskaja Kjartansson, Lázár Skopinskaja Aleksandrowicz-Pedich Lázár

Thursday, April 5th Morning 9.00 – 10.00

Exams versus curricula

Kjartansson, Lázár


10.00-10.30 10.30-12.30 Lunch Afternoon 19.00

Break Establishing themes for the four networks Setting up of network groups Guided tour in Graz. Free afternoon. Workshop dinner

All animators

Friday, April 6th Morning 9.00 – 9.30 9:30 – 10:00 10.00 – 10:30 11.00 – 12.30 Lunch Afternoon 14.00 –15.00 15.30 – 16.00 16.30 – 18.00

ECML support for the R&D networks Presentation of the ECML web site and its potential and possibilities for networking break Networks working on their plans in groups Plenary - networks presenting drafts, evaluation by animators and participants break Group work: finalising presentations (using resource center and technical equipment)

Josef Huber Michael Armstrong All animators All animators All animators

Saturday, April 7th Morning 9.00 – 10. 00 10.00 – 10.30 10.30 – 12.00 Lunch 13.30 – 14.30 14.30 – 15.00 15.00

Group work: finalising presentations break Plenary: networks’ presentations and evaluation of presentations Conclusions, disbanding Feedback Closing of the workshop

All animators Participants All animators ECML authorities


Appendix 2: Definitions of key concepts By Liljana Skopinskaja The aim of this presentation was to discuss some of the relevant key concepts in intercultural communication, namely, different definitions of culture; the interrelationship of culture and language, cultural awareness and language awareness; awareness of cultural variations in non-verbal communication; the concepts of intercultural communication, intercultural competence and intercultural communicative competence; various barriers to intercultural communication, and finally the goal of intercultural communicative training, i.e. achieving cultural relativism in the foreign language (FL) classroom. The session started with a short brainstorming activity around the question “What does teaching culture mean in your professional context?”. The participants’ responses were linked with the study of FL teachers’ definitions of culture made by G.I. Nemetz Robinson in 1985. This study viewed culture as comprising both non-observable phenomena (e.g. ideas, beliefs, values, institutions) and observable phenomena (e.g. behaviour, customs/habits, products of literature, music, etc.). In the theoretical contributions, culture may be defined from four points of view (G.I. Nemetz Robinson 1985): 1) From the behaviourist viewpoint culture consists of observable patterns of behaviour,

i.e. traditions, habits, or customs. 2) The functionalist definition of culture concerns the rules and functions underlying the

behaviour. 3) According to the cognitive definition, culture is seen as the worldview, i.e. a common

system of standards for perceiving, believing, evaluating and acting (Kramsch 1998), or “the software of the mind” (Hofstede 1991), i.e. the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from those of another (Hofstede 1988).

4) The symbolic definition views culture as a shared system of symbols and meanings

which dictates what we pay attention to, how we act and what we value (Trompenaars 1994).

In FL teaching there have been two mainstream definitions of culture. On the one hand, culture is referred to as “formal culture” (Brooks 1964), or “culture with capital C” (Stern 1992), or “achievement culture” (Stempleski & Tomalin 1993), or “high culture” (Scollon & Scollon 1995) in the sense of a people’s intellectual and artistic achievements as well as their economic, social and political history. On the other hand, this contrasts with “deep culture” (Brooks 1964), or “culture with a small c” (Stern 1992), or “behaviour culture” (Stempleski & Tomalin 1993), or “anthropological culture” (Scollon and Scollon 1995) which emphasises the way-of-life aspect of culture.


The concept of culture may also be divided into three levels according to Schein (quoted in Yli-Renko 1993), Trompenaars (1994) and Williams (quoted in Byram 1989). On the surface level, i.e. level I (Schein 1987), or “outer level” (Trompenaars 1994), or “documentary level” (Williams 1965) there are explicit products: artefacts, perceivable behaviour, etc. The second level, i.e. level 2 (Schein 1987), or “middle layer” (Trompenaars 1994), or “social level” (Williams 1965) includes norms, values and attitudes. The deepest level, i.e. level 3 (Schein 1987), “core” (Trompenaars 1994), or “ideal” (Williams 1965) comprises fundamental assumptions about existence. Next, the interrelationship of culture and language was discussed. Culture and language are inseparable and both learned. In the same way as we encourage our students to develop language awareness, we should also motivate them to develop a parallel awareness of culture. Cultural awareness can thus be defined as sensitivity to the impact of culturally induced behaviour on language use and communication (Stempleski & Tomalin 1993:5). Brown (1987: 209) indicates that the expression of culture is so bound up in non-verbal communication that the barriers to culture learning are non-verbal rather than verbal. From the point of view of teaching foreign languages, awareness of culture variations in non-verbal communication should refer to the following areas: proximics, i.e. space and distance between people; kinesics, i.e. facial expressions, posture, gestures; and paralanguage, i.e. non-verbal sounds and silence. While speaking about intercultural communication and the related terms, it should be stated that intercultural communication is an all-encompassing term referring to communication between people from different cultural backgrounds (Samovar et al. quoted in Yli-Renko 1993). Intercultural competence is an extension and elaboration of communicative competence (Stern 1992). Communicative competence is usually divided into the four aspects of grammatical, sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic competence, but this list can be extended by adding intercultural competence (Byram 1997). In FL learning, intercultural competence has been described as “the ability of a person to behave adequately in a flexible manner when confronted with actions, attitudes and expectations of representatives of foreign cultures” (Meyer 1991 quoted in Cortazzi & Jin 1999: 198). Yet, in a FLL context teachers should not be surprised when tolerance and understanding are not the immediate results of their students’ learning a foreign culture. Sometimes the reverse happens: learners experience ethnocentrism, culture shock, or see the other culture in a stereotyped way. Although there is some truth in cultural observations underlying stereotyping, stereotypes are the result of evaluative overgeneralisations. A more serious problem may be that of prejudice which predisposes a person to think, feel, or act in a negative way towards a certain group of people. Both stereotype and prejudice formation have to be fought against by reinforcing empathy and tolerance. In the FL classroom, it is crucial that learners should become aware of different cultural frameworks, including their own. The new cultural phenomena can be understood only in the light of the learners’ existing cultural experience. Meanwhile, students should learn to look at their own cultural environment from an outside perspective. Learning to practise this multi-focal perspective forms the essence of intercultural communicative training.


References Brooks, N. (1964) Language and Language Learning. Sec. ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Brown, H. Douglas. (1987) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Sec. ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents. Byram, M. (1989) Cultural Studies in Foreign language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Cortazzi, M. and L. Jin. (1999) “Cultural Mirrors: Materials and Methods in the EFL Classroom.” In: E. Hinkel (ed.). Culture in Second Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP, 196-219. Hofstede, G. (1988) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw Hill. Kramsch, C. (1998) Language and Culture. Oxford: OUP. Robinson, G.I. Nemetz. (1985) Crosscultural Understanding: Processes and Approaches for Foreign Language, English as a Second Language and Bilingual Educators. New York: Pergamon Press. Scollon, R. and S. Wong Scollon. (1995) Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell. Stempleski, S. and B. Tomalin. (1993) Cultural Awareness. Oxford: OUP. Stern, H.H. (1992) Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Ed. by P.Allen and B.Harley. Oxford: OUP. Tropenaars, F. (1994) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing Ltd. Yli-Renko, K. (1993) Intercultural Communication in Foreign Language Education. Turku: University of Turku.


Appendix 3: Culture-related activities in the language classroom: an intercultural study1 By Ildikó Lázár 1. Introduction The importance of gaining communicative competence through language learning has been widely accepted by the language teaching profession in Europe. The incorporation of elements of the target language culture(s) in foreign language instruction has also received more attention in the region in recent years. Many professionals agree that grammatical and lexical competence alone will not help a non-native speaker of English to successfully socialize, negotiate or complain in the foreign language. On the other hand, communicative competence alone will not necessarily help native or non-native speakers of English to successfully communicate with one another either. How much and what kind of cultural competence is transmitted through classes of English? Is culture-teaching an integral part of the English as a foreign language curriculum or is it ”the neglected element” in the classroom (Holló and Lázár 2000a)? The questionnaire study presented in this paper is an attempt to investigate this issue. 2. Defining culture and intercultural communicative competence The definition of culture used during the preparation of our questionnaire and all through this research project, divides culture into two well-known categories: capital ‘C’ Culture (civilisation) and lower-case ‘c’ culture (behaviour and speech patterns, and text structures and skills). The questionnaire was based on this simple division because the aim was to find out whether language teachers spend class time on the civilisation elements of culture that would deepen students’ background knowledge, and whether FL teachers raise students’ awareness of all the other facets of culture that would help them to improve communication in intercultural settings. Intercultural communicative competence is an extension of communicative competence. Bennett (1997) claims that “to avoid becoming a fluent fool, we need to understand more completely the cultural dimension of language. Language does serve as a tool for communication, but in addition it is a ‘system of representation’ for perception and thinking” (p. 16). In Beneke’s words “intercultural communication in the wider sense of the word involves the use of significantly different linguistic codes and contact between people holding significantly different sets of values and models of the world. […] Intercultural competence is to a large extent the ability to cope with one’s own cultural background in interaction with others.” (2000: 108-109) Fantini (2000) describes five constructs that should be developed for successful intercultural communication: awareness, attitudes, skills, knowledge and language proficiency. Furthermore, he also cites the following commonly used attributes to describe

1 Present report is the abridged version of an unpublished PhD assignment in the Language Pedagogy PhD

programme at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary.


the intercultural speaker: respect, empathy, flexibility, patience, interest, curiosity, openness, motivation, a sense of humor, tolerance for ambiguity, and a willingness to suspend judgement. (p. 28) According to Byram (1997) intercultural communicative competence requires certain attitudes, knowledge and skills in addition to linguistic, sociolinguistic and discourse competence. The attitudes include curiosity and openness as well as readiness to see other cultures and the speaker’s own without being judgmental. The required knowledge is ”of social groups and their products and practices in one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s country, and of the general processes of societal and individual interaction” (p. 51). Finally, the skills include those of interpreting and relating, discovery and interaction as well as critical cultural awareness/political education. The questions in the first section of our questionnaire were designed to investigate how often teachers do civilisation-related activities in the English classroom, while the second section of the questionnaire was intended to investigate whether teachers pay attention to developing the skills, knowledge and attitudes necessary for the intercultural speaker as Byram defines the term. (See questionnaire at the end of the paper.) 3. Context and Rationale This questionnaire study originated after a workshop held at the European Centre for Modern Languages in Graz on 23-27 February 1999. As a follow up to this workshop a team of researchers (Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich – Poland, Rafn Kjartansson – Iceland, Ildikó Lázár – Hungary, and Liljana Skopinskaja – Estonia) decided to study the issue of intercultural awareness in teacher training and EFL education. In the first pilot stage of the research project, however, we only focused on the presence of activities relating to the civilisation of English speaking countries in the English classroom in Estonia, Hungary and Poland. The pilot-study, the results of which were published in Poland, was only the first phase of our project. (Aleksandrowicz-Pedich, L., Lázár, I. & Skopinskaja, L, 2000) Research Questions The aim of this second phase of our questionnaire study is to find out what elements of culture EFL teachers incorporate in their language lessons and how often they do this in the four examined European countries. We also studied whether this frequency is influenced by the teachers’ former training and their immersion in foreign cultures. Accordingly, we formulated the following four research questions: 1. How often do teachers of English incorporate activities related to the civilisation of the target-cultures in their EFL classes? 2. How often do teachers of English incorporate lower-case ‘c’ culture-related activities in their EFL classes? 3. Does the frequency of culture-related activities depend on how much time the teacher has spent abroad? 4. Does the frequency of culture-related activities depend on the teacher’s former cultural awareness or intercultural communication training?


With regard to the first two research questions, the author hypothesized that teachers would not often spend class time with activities on any elements of culture, but that they would incorporate civilisation-related activities a little more often than intercultural communication-related ones. This hypothesis was based on the results of the pilot study and previous experience with pre- and in-service teachers. The author also hypothesized that training and the amount of time spent abroad will positively influence the frequency of culture-related activities. On the other hand, no predictions were made about differences between the impact of training and the impact of time spent abroad. 4. Method 4.1. Population and selection procedures The study was conducted between April and October 2000. Altogether 393 questionnaires were collected – 100 from Estonia, 106 from Hungary, 86 from Iceland and 101 from Poland. The respondents were teachers of English at primary, secondary or tertiary level. In Iceland, the questionnaire was mailed to subjects and the return rate was 53%. In Estonia, Hungary and Poland, some of the questionnaires were given out to teachers personally, while the rest were sent out to teachers we knew in a variety of schools. This way, not only was the return rate relatively high, but we ensured that a larger percentage of those teachers who do not care about teaching culture, and would not have responded to a mailed questionnaire, did fill it in and send it back to us because it was for the colleague of a colleague. The present phase of our project intends to examine the issue in more detail and with a larger sample in four countries. The original questionnaire was expanded and refined to also include a section on the frequency of intercultural communication activities used in the classroom. Furthermore, open-ended questions were omitted from the revised questionnaire and a greater number of multiple-choice items were included with the purpose of eliciting more precise background information on the respondents. 4.2. Validity and reliability of the questionnaire Both versions of the questionnaire were preceded by pilot interviews to help determine activities to be listed in the two sections of the questionnaire. The first version of the present questionnaire had also been piloted in three countries before it was revised and refined. The new enlarged version was tested and retested with a group of ten teachers in Hungary with a 5-week interval. 96% of the data were stable. However, as with all questionnaires there may be some threats to validity because subject expectancy probably resulted in the teachers’ answering more positively. For example, when respondents had to decide whether they had discussed culture shock with their classes, they might have marked ‘sometimes’ even if they had only done this once with one class. The category ‘sometimes’ might have attracted all the checks that would have gone to the categories ‘rarely’, ‘practically never’ and ‘I don’t know’ if such options had appeared on the questionnaire. Therefore, when analyzing the data of the second section of the questionnaire, the author decided to focus mainly on the percentage of those respondents who checked the option ‘always’ in this section.


It seems that on average, the participating 393 teachers spend 48.2% of the cultural activities with a focus on Britain, 29.17% on North America, 14.16% on the students’ home country, 4% on other countries and 3.84% on Australia. What is not evident from the answers to the questionnaire is the type of cultural content which is meant and why the countries are distributed in these ratios. This area would also be worth further investigation. Finally, further investigations will be needed to determine the role which coursebooks play in the amount of cultural content in EFL classes. Although the present questionnaire required information on the coursebooks used and asked for the teacher’s evaluation of them, the 393 respondents in the four examined countries seemed to use so many different coursebooks that no statistically significant differences could be established among them. Despite the difficulties outlined above, it is believed that the data provide a valuable insight into the role of culture now in the English language classroom in the four examined countries. 5. Results of the statistical analysis The frequency of culture-related activities in the EFL classroom never rarely sometimes often Total

Discussions on cultural differences (social habits...)

2 0,5 %

50 12,8 %

232 59,2 %

108 27,6 %

392 100 %

Videos or photos of famous sights and people

20 5,1 %

107 27,2 %

211 53,7 %

55 14,0 %

393 100 %

Songs with information on singer and lyrics

34 8,7 %

158 40,3 %

143 36,2 %

58 14,8 %

393 100 %

Art (pictures of paintings and sculptures)

90 23,0 %

197 50,3 %

96 24,2 %

10 2,6 %

393 100 %

Current events (social or political issues)

32 8,2 %

127 32,1 %

163 41,6 %

71 18,1%

393 100 %

Literature (short stories, poems or other works)

17 4,3 %

87 22,2 %

160 40,6 %

129 32,9 %

393 100 %

Table 1: Frequency of civilisation-related activities


never sometimes always Total

Discussions on appropriate conversation topics

53 13.5%

267 67.9%

71 18.1%

391 100 %

Rituals of greeting and leave-taking

17 4.3%

161 40.8%

214 54.6%

392 100 %

Appropriate ways of complaining/criticizing

21 5.4%

204 52.0%

167 42.3%

392 100 %

Expressing gratitude non-verbally 148 37.8%

184 46.7%

61 15.6%

393 100 %

Differences in personal space 144 36.5%

178 45.4%

70 17.9%

392 100 %

Dangers of negative stereotyping 44 11.2%

225 57.1%

124 31.6%

393 100 %

Discussions on culture shock 83 21.2%

232 58.9%

78 19.9%

393 100 %

Table 2: Frequency of lower-case ’c’ culture-related activities Types of activities (count, expected, row %, std. residual)

Have not been abroad for a month or more 38.2%

Have been abroad for a month or more 63.2%

never rarely sometimes often never rarely sometimes often Discussions on cultural differences (social habits, values, lifestyles, etc.) (χ=18.406; p< 0.01 )

0

0.7 0% -0.9

28

18.4 19.4%

2.2

91

85.1 63.2%

0.6

25

39.8 17,36%

-2.3

2

1.3 0.8% 0.7

22

31.6 8.9% 0.7

140

145.9 56.7%

-0.5

83

68.2 33,60%

1.8

Current events (social or political issues) (χ=14.008; p=0.003)

15

11.8 10.4%

0.9

59

46.3 41% 1.9

54

59.9 37.5%

-0.8

16

26.1 11,11%

-2.0

17

20.2 6.9% -0.7

67

79.7 27.0%

-1.4

109

103.1 44.0%

1.5

55

44.9 22,18%

1.5 never sometimes always never sometimes always Dangers of negative stereotyping (χ=6.876; p=0.032)

19

16.2 13.2%

0.7

91

82.3 63.2%

1.0

34

45.6 23,61%

-1.7

25

27.8 10.1%

-0.5

133

141.7 53.6%

-0.7

90

78.4 36,29%

1.3 Discussions about culture shock (χ=20.044; p<0.00)

43

30.5 29.9%

2.3

87

84.9 60.4%

0.2

14

28.7 9,72%

-2.7

40

52.5 16.1%

-1.7

144

146.1 58.1%

-0.2

64

49.3 25,81%

2.1 Table 3: The impact of a stay abroad on the frequency of activities


Types of activities (count, expected, row %, std. residual)

Have not attended any cultural awareness or intercultural communication training 146 (37.3%)

Have attended some cultural awareness or intercultural communication training 245 (62.7%)

never rarely sometimes often never rarely sometimes often Videos or photos of famous people and sights (χ=25.143, p<0.001)

16 7.4

11.0% 3.1

47

39.9 32.2%

1.1

72

78.6 49.3%

-0.7

11

20.1 7.5% -2.0

4

12.6 1.6% -2.4

60

67.1 24.4%

-0.9

139

132.4 56.5%

0.6

43

33.9 17.5%

1.6

Songs and explanations of lyrics … (χ=15.189, p=0.002)

19

12.7 13.0%

1.8

70

58.8 47.9%

1.5

39

52.9 26.7%

-1.9

18

21.6 12.3%

-0.8

15

21.3 6.1% -1.4

88

99.2 35.8%

-1.1

103 89.1

41.9% 1.5

40

36.4 16.3%

0.6

Current events (social or political issues) (χ=27.756; p<0.001)

24

11.9 16.4%

3.5

49

46.9 33.6%

0.3

58

60.7 39.7%

-0.3

15

26.4 10.3%

-2.2

8

20.1 3.3% -2.7

77

79.1 31.3%

-0.2

105

102.3 42.7%

0.3

56

44.6 22.8%

1.7

Short stories, poems or other literary works (χ=11.636; p=0.009)

8

6.3 5.5% 0.7

45

32.4 30.8%

2.2

50

59.2 34.2%

-1.2

43

48.0 29.5%

-0.7

9

10.7 3.7% -0.5

42

54.6 17.1%

-1.7

109 99.8

44.3% 0.9

86

81.0 35.0%

0.6

Table 4a: The impact of training on the frequency of civilisation-related activities


Types of activities (count, expected, row %, std. residual)

Have not attended any cultural awareness or intercultural communication training 146 (37.3%)

Have attended some cultural awareness or intercultural communication training 245 (62.7%)

never sometimes always never sometimes always

The rituals of greetings…

(χ=12.200; p=0.007)

11 6.3

7.5% 1.9

69

59.6 47.3%

1.2

66

79.7 45.2%

-1.5

6

10.7 2.4% -1.4

91

100.4 37.0%

-0.9

148

134.3 60.2%

1.2

Complaints and

criticism

(χ=16.093; p=0.001)

15 7.8

10.3% 2.6

82

76.0 56.2%

0.7

49

61.8 33.6%

-1.6

6

13.2 2.4% -2.0

122

128.0 49.6%

-0.5

117

104.2 47.6%

1.3

Expressing gratitude

nonverbally

(χ=17.392; p<0.001)

74

55.1 50.7%

2.5

57

68.2 39.0%

-1.4

15

22.7 10.3%

-1.6

74

92.9 30.1%

-2.0

126

114.8 51.2%

1.0

46

38.3 18.7%

1.2

Personal space

(χ=25.659; p<0.001)

75

53.3 51.4%

3.0

54

66.3 37.0%

-1.5

16

26.1 11.0%

-2.0

68

89.7 27.6%

-2.3

124

111.7 50.4%

1.2

54

43.9 22.0%

1.5

Dangers of negative stereotyping

(χ=35.235; p<0.001)

32

16.4 21.9%

3.9

86

83.4 58.9%

0.3

28

46.2 19.2%

-2.7

12

27.6 4.9% -3.0

138

140.6 56.1%

-0.2

96

77.8 39.0%

2.1

Discussions about culture shock (χ=46.770; p<0.001)

55

30.9 37.7%

4.3

79

86.0 54.1%

-0.8

12

29.1 8.2% -3.2

28

52.1 11.4%

-3.3

152

145.0 61.8%

0.6

66

48.9 26.8%

2.4

Table 4b: The impact of training on the frequency of lower-case ‘c’ culture-related

activities


6. Discussion and conclusions It is clear from Table 1 above that the three activities teachers undertake most often from Section 1 are based on literature, discussions on cultural differences and current events. However even these are often included in the language lesson by just 32.9%, 27.6% and 18.1% of the teachers respectively. Songs, videos or photos and art from other cultures are even less frequently incorporated into the English lesson (only 14.8%, 14% and 2.6% of the teachers practice these three activities often). We must remember here that ‘often’ was defined in the questionnaire as every third class or more often, ‘sometimes’ meant about three or four times in a term or course, and ‘rarely’ indicated perhaps once in a term or course. This means that activities that may lead to a better knowledge of the target cultures’ civilisation are only sometimes or rarely done by the majority of teachers. Considering activities leading towards intercultural communicative competence as sampled in Section 2 of the questionnaire, the results are even more mixed. As the figures in Table 2 above show it is clear that aside from functions (greetings and complaints), activities in this section are even less popular with teachers. Only 18.1% of the teachers said they always made sure to discuss the issue of appropriate conversation topics with their students. Only 15.6% and 17.9% of the teachers said they always discussed differences in nonverbal communication and personal space with their groups. This means that students of the remaining over 80% of the teachers are not very likely to learn anything about these issues from their English teachers. This also means that they may end up learning about the importance of differences in conversation topics, gestures, facial expressions and proximity through, perhaps unpleasant, personal experience. The same seems to hold true for culture shock, a basic phenomenon in the process of learning about a second or foreign culture that can cause a lot of trouble and loss of self-confidence. Only 19.9% of the total sample said they always made sure that they told their students about culture shock. From the data it seems that the majority of teachers incorporate very few activities with a cultural focus in the language classroom. Nevertheless, as it can be seen from Tables 3 and 4a and 4b, both staying abroad and training do make a significant difference in the frequency of culture-related activities practiced in class. It is interesting to observe that according to the length of stay abroad, there were statistically significant differences between respondents in the frequency of just four activities: discussions about cultural differences, current events, negative stereotypes, and culture shock. However, the differences here doubled and sometimes tripled in favour of the teachers who had spent a longer period of time abroad. On the one hand, it can be concluded from the data in Table 4a and Table 4b that those respondents who had received some form of cultural awareness or intercultural communication training do almost all of the activities and significantly more often. The percentage of teachers who often discuss cultural differences and current events, use photos and videos, and always make sure to discuss appropriate conversation topics, proximity and the dangers of negative stereotyping approximately doubled among the teachers who had some previous training in this field. The differences are also significantly in favour of teachers with some training experience in all of the other activities, with the exception of the use of pictures, paintings and sculptures (art), which was slightly less popular with these teachers. On the other hand, the ratio of teachers who always discuss culture shock with their students tripled among the respondents with some intercultural communication training.


Moreover, all these statistically significant differences are the results of training that perhaps only consisted of one workshop. In the original questionnaire, the question eliciting information about the respondent’s former training in cultural awareness or intercultural communication provided four options to choose from: ‘no training’, ‘one or two workshops’, ‘a university course’, and ‘other’. In order for all the cells in the statistical analysis to contain more than five respondents, the author had to omit some categories so that people now either fell into the categories of ‘no training’ or ‘some training’. It is remarkable that despite the broad category of ‘some training’, the differences in the frequencies of culture-related activities in the classroom between the two categories were so large. Therefore, it seems that even short workshops or training courses raise teachers’ awareness of the importance of culture-related activities more significantly than a longer stay abroad. On the other hand, a workshop or short training course may not give enough assistance for teachers in learning how, why and when to incorporate culture-related activities in their syllabus. In fact, civilisation-related activities and intercultural communication training do not exactly form an integral part of language teaching, because very few teacher training institutions incorporate them in their programmes. In other words, pre-service teachers are usually not trained how to convey the knowledge, the attitudes and skills necessary for the intercultural speaker. Whether trainees learn anything about this mostly depends on their personal experience abroad and the priorities of the particular teachers and professors whose courses they attend during their studies. Another reason why culture may easily be neglected in EFL classes is that courses are tailored towards exams and the teachers’ attention (and the time available) are directed at skills which will be tested in the exam. On the basis of the Common European Framework of Reference, the national core curricula in the four examined countries require that students of foreign languages be able to establish new personal relationships, to appreciate the people and culture of other countries and to develop a more complex notion of their own personal and cultural identity by comparing these to the unique values of other countries. Unfortunately, practically none of these skills, knowledge and attitudes are assessed in the final school-leaving exams. The scope of this investigation is somewhat limited. However, judging from its results, it seems from this questionnaire study that culture-related activities are most of the time pushed into the background, and probably only pulled out again when the teacher feels that the lesson should be spiced up a little. On a cynical note, in addition to their coursebook’s often limited cultural content, the majority of EFL students can perhaps listen to a Beatles song (or Madonna) once or twice a term and learn about Christmas pudding in Britain once a year. This certainly does not widen their cultural horizon too much and it definitely does not help them to better communicate with people with different values, beliefs and customs. Perhaps when pre- and in-service teachers receive training in integrating intercultural communication into the foreign language syllabus, when more teachers and students can participate in immersion programmes, and when examinations start assessing intercultual communicative competence, the answers to a questionnaire like this will be more positive. Until then it is important to further investigate how language and culture interact and the implications of this interaction for the foreign language classroom. It would also be interesting to investigate the role which coursebooks play in the frequency and depth of


cultural learning. Finally, further research is also necessary to establish how intercultural communication training could be integrated in language instruction and teacher training, and the results which this curriculum reform could bring in terms of students’ general linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and intercultural communicative competence. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich (Poland), Rafn Kjartansson (Iceland), and Liljana Skopinskaja (Estonia) for their help in revising my original questionnaire, for the data collection they carried out in their home countries and also for their valuable insights during the research project. This research could not have been conducted without the financial support of the European Centre for Modern Languages of the Council of Europe in Graz, the British Council in Budapest and the Hungarian Ministry of Education. References Aleksandrowicz-Pedich, L., Lázár, I. & Skopinskaja, L. (2000) “Cross-national study on cross-cultural awareness”. Poland: Network. Vol. 3, No. 3. Beneke, J. (2000) Intercultural competence. In: U. Bliesener (ed.), Training the Trainers. International Business Communication. Vol. 5. Carl Duisberg Verlag. Bennett, M.J. (1997) How Not to Be a Fluent Fool: Understanding the Cultural Dimension of Language. In: A.E. Fantini (ed.), New Ways in Teaching Culture (pp. 16-21). Alexandria: TESOL. Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Multilingual Matters. Fantini, A. E. (2000) “A central concern: Developing intercultural communicative competence”. School for International Training Occasional Papers Series. Inaugural Issue. Holló, D. & Lázár, I. (2000a) “The neglected element: Teaching culture in the EFL classroom”. NovELTy. Vol.7, No. 1: 76-84.


Introduction to the Questionnaire Dear English Teacher, We are an international team supported by the Council of Europe’s European Centre for Modern Languages in Graz, the British Council and Ministries of Education. We are conducting research in several European countries to find out how much and what exactly language teachers teach their students about culture. We are interested in your experience at primary, secondary or tertiary level. The information you provide us with will be a very useful contribution to our research into the ways in which culture can be taught in language classes. The questionnaire consists of three sections and it will take you about ten minutes to fill in all three. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. Please return the questionnaire to the address below. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Coordinator in Hungary: Ildikó Lázár ELTE SEAS Department of English Applied Linguistics Ajtósi Dürer sor 19-21 H-1146 Budapest Fax: 343-6801 Phone: 343-4063 e-mail: [email protected] Researchers in other countries: Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich, Poland Rafn Kjartansson, Iceland Liljana Skopinskaja, Estonia


QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION I How often do you include activities based on the following in your English lessons? 1. discussions on cultural differences (social habits, values, lifestyles)

never rarely sometimes often

(perhaps once in (about three or four (every third class a term or course) times in a course) or more often)

2. videos or photos of famous sights and people


3. songs with information on the singer or band and explanations of lyrics


4. art (eg. photos of sculptures and paintings)


5. current events (either social or political issues)


6. short stories, poems or any other literary work



SECTION II Please answer the following questions. 1. Do you discuss the appropriate choices for conversation topics in the foreign

language with your students?

Never Sometimes Always 2. Do you tell your students that the rituals of greeting and leave-taking can be different

in each culture?

Never Sometimes Always 3. Do you teach your students the appropriate ways of complaining and criticizing in the

target language?

Never Sometimes Always 4. Do you teach your students how to express gratitude non-verbally in the target

culture(s)?

Never Sometimes Always 5. Do you tell your students that personal space (e.g. how far you stand from people

when you talk) varies in each culture?

Never Sometimes Always 6. Do you discuss the dangers of negative stereotyping (prejudices) with your students?

Never Sometimes Always 7. Do you tell your students about culture shock?

Never Sometimes Always


SECTION III 1. When you do the activities in sections I and II above, which country or countries do

you mostly focus on? Please indicate in what proportions the following countries are treated in your language lessons.

Australia % Britain % United States % Students’ country of origin % other countries % Please specify

2. Who do you teach English to? Please check the appropriate boxes in the columns

below.

Level: Age group: (false) beginner 10-14 lower-intermediate 14-18 intermediate 18-25 advanced adults

3. Which coursebook(s) do you most frequently use?

a, _________________________________________ (title of first book)

Does this book help you teach the issues listed in section I above? not at all very little to some extent very much

Does this book help you teach the issues listed in section II above? not at all very little to some extent very much

b, _________________________________________ (indicate another coursebook here if applicable)

Does this book help you teach the issues listed in section I above? not at all very little to some extent very much

Does this book help you teach the issues listed in section II above? not at all very little to some extent very much


4. How much do you think your students are aware of cultural differences?

not at all very little to some extent very much

5. Please answer the following questions about yourself.

a) Your age:

20-30 31-40 41-50 51 + b) Your highest qualifications:

B.A, B. Ed. or equivalent M.A, M.Ed. or equivalent Ph.D. other (please specify)

c) Sex:

female male d) Residence:

city small town village other country:

e) Mother tongue:

native speaker of English non-native speaker of English f) Have you ever lived in a foreign country for a month or more?

No Yes g) Have you attended a workshop or course on cultural awareness and/or

intercultural communication?

No One or two conference workshops A course at university/college Other Please specify ___________________


Appendix 4: Case studies By Rafn Kjartansson The presentation on Case Studies dealt with an aspect of the research project into the role of culture in teaching in Estonia, Hungary, Iceland and Poland. This part was divided into three stages, i.e. structured interviews where five respondents from each country were asked to answer a set of culture-related questions with the aim of discovering their views on particular issues. In a subsequent training session, the respondents were presented with culture-related exercises and reading materials. Some of the exercises were tried out and teachers were encouraged to use them with their students. In a feedback interview the participants talked about their experience of the interview and training session. Some problems which the researchers encountered in relation to methodology were pointed out and, finally, the results were analysed, using quotes taken from the interviews to highlight the respondents’ attitudes to intercultural training as an aspect of English teaching. Choice of respondents The most important criterion for the choice of respondents was that they should not have attended a previous course in intercultural training. Furthermore, it was preferred to select teachers with a variation of educational and cultural backgrounds. Why personal interviews? Qualitative vs quantitative The chief aim of the interviews was to add depth to the project. The questionnaires provided a large quantity of data. The researchers, however, were not much aware of the thought processes behind the respondents’ selections. It was felt, therefore, that the interviews added a worthwhile dimension to the project. Perhaps this would best be described as the element of qualitative research. Quantitative research focuses on numbers, logic and the objective whereas qualitative research deals in words, images and the subjective. Of course, subjective may be a risky word to use in connection with any piece of research that people want to be taken seriously. However, discovering people’s perceptions and feelings about the topic dealt with adds depth to a research project. This does not provide large quantities of data for statistical processing, but yields richer data which can be used to evaluate aspects of the more superficial quantitative research. So, we have here a contrast between a questionnaire study on the one hand, with a large sample and a somewhat superficial response and case studies based on interviews, yielding a small sample but a richer, in-depth response.


Were the interviews prescriptive or descriptive? Some teachers felt that the quality of their teaching was being assessed. Consequently, it was made clear at the beginning of the interview that this was in no way intended as a test. The interview was not prescriptive in the sense that the respondents were being told how to teach, but descriptive, i.e. attempting to find out how the respondents felt about including cultural elements in their teaching. It was probably because of this feeling that they were being tested, the respondents sometimes indicated that they included a certain activity in their teaching, and then found it hard to explain exactly how. Some respondents may have felt that by saying “I never do that” they were displaying a hostile attitude to the whole idea of teaching a particular item. A positive bias? In the light of the above, it may be reasonable to conclude that the results of the case studies may err in a certain direction (and this could apply to the questionnaires as well), i.e. the responses may well have indicated a higher level of culture teaching in the classroom than is actually the case. The questions The teachers were asked if they included the following items in their teaching of the target language or discussed them with their students:

1. The appropriate choices for conversation topics 2. Rituals of greeting and leave-taking 3. Appropriate ways of complaining and criticising 4. The non-verbal expression of gratitude 5. How personal space varies from one culture to another 6. The dangers of negative stereotyping 7. Culture shock 8. Reacting to unexpected or ambiguous situations without excessive discomfort.

Main conclusions to be drawn from the interviews: • The interviews clearly brought out the importance of the textbook and other reading

materials, especially literature that the teachers were using. This should draw our attention to literature as an important means for teaching cultural awareness and understanding.

• At least one teacher brought up the idea of discussing the students’ own culture in the

classroom from the purely practical point of view, as when abroad, this is what they will be asked to do.


• Quite often the impression was conveyed that the respondents found the cultural issues

that were brought up quite interesting, but that these ideas simply had not occurred to them. “It is interesting, but I never thought of it” is the kind of answer that makes one optimistic that the research project might influence some people’s teaching.

• Apart from using textbook materials, the teachers drew upon their own personal

experiences. A respondent that was born and brought up in another culture said he frequently told stories about his own background to bring out cultural differences.

• Sometimes doubts were expressed as to whether this kind of teaching really belonged

to English or other subjects, e.g. sociology. • It was suggested, that perhaps some of this was trivial – “I have other more important

things to do”. “I am not into this touchy-feely stuff”. Feedback from training session The training session included materials related to intercultural study by Hofstede (1994), Cushner and Brislin (1996) and Anne Brit-Fenner (2000). Three intercultural games were presented and the teachers were encouraged to try them out with their students. • Teachers from all the countries said they had liked the experience of the training

session, suggesting that such materials and activities encourage young people to think of cultural differences.

• Some of those who did look at the reading materials, however, thought they were too

theoretical and too far removed from classroom practice. • The point was made, also, that moving culture teaching in this direction, away from the

traditional UK/US focus, was more relevant to the role of English in the modern world. • One teacher suggested that intercultural games were a subtle method of making the

students understand the mistake of judging people without knowing them – a serious discussion about tolerance and racism would not work with a large group of teenagers, but the games got the point across.

• Another teacher said she had been pleasantly surprised by the new approach to culture

training which has nothing to do with cultural imperialism, but is all about educating students in acceptable behaviour.

• Some teachers pointed out that examination pressure prevented them from dealing with

intercultural issues in the classroom – bringing home the important truth that if materials do not feature in the examination, they are neglected.


Sample thought from training session The presentation was concluded by a notion from Anne-Brit Fenner’s article on intercultural awareness and how this could be introduced into the language classroom. She expresses the view that intercultural studies and comparisons are a worthy challenge for young people and an ideal way of expanding their horizons. "Might it not be”, she says, “that this age group is more interested in the unknown and exotic than in their own lives and their own problems?”. This, surely, is a point that many teachers might find well worth considering.


Appendix 5: Pilot modules Pilot module 1 Intercultural competence in EFL BA Seminar Third Year By Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich, University of Bialystok, Teacher Training College, Poland This two semester course is taught by myself at the Department of English at the Bialystok University in Poland. Writing a diploma thesis is a required component of our teacher-training programme. A BA seminar is obligatory for third year students, but they choose one of the four seminars offered at our Department. The lecturers responsible for diploma work suggest the areas of study in the seminars. This year the following seminars were offered: • General EFL methodology; • Graded readers in EFL; • British culture in EFL; • Intercultural competence in EFL. The diploma thesis involves a theoretical section (about 25 pages) and a practical part which consists of lesson plans and/or activities, designed or adapted, conducted and then commented upon by the trainee. I was encouraged to suggest this seminar on the basis of my own involvement in the ECML project on intercultural communicative competence with Ildikó Lázár, Liljana Skopinskaja and Rafn Kjartansson. Also, as a lecturer in American literature I am interested in the ways target language cultural studies can contribute to intercultural awareness of teacher trainees. The guiding principle of the course is the belief that there is no successful linguistic communication without cross-cultural awareness. The practical aim of the course is the preparation of the diploma thesis by the students, which is to be submitted in requirement towards a teaching diploma. It is a large project and, by doing it in the realm of the theory of intercultural studies and its practical implications for teaching, trainees learn that cultural awareness can be developed alongside language skills. The course is divided into four main stages: • Initial two-three classes: students do a number of cross-cultural activities prepared by

myself. Each activity, after it has been conducted, is then discussed from two points of view – how it develops intercultural awareness and how it contributes to language development (four skills, vocabulary, grammar).


• Next three-four classes: we continue cross-cultural activities prepared by myself, but we also read together and discuss Anne-Brit Fenner’s article on cultural awareness (from ECML publication Approaches to Material Design in European Textbooks: Implementing Principles of Authenticity, Learner Autonomy, Cultural Awareness). Students are also required to read Hofstede’s Cultures and organisations. Other books and articles are also suggested.

• Next six-seven classes: students prepare activities on cross-cultural awareness, which

they are going to do during their teaching practice in February. These activities are then conducted as micro-teaching, with other students taking part as learners. Micro-teaching is followed by discussion, with particular emphasis on predicting possible problems in real teaching situations. Each student presents at least two activities.

• Second semester: teaching practice in schools, writing the thesis and individual

consultations. Sample activities which were conducted in the first stage of the course included, among others: • personal/Cultural/Universal – discussion; • “Odd one out” with postcards from different countries – speaking practice; • matching proverbs with values and/or countries – reading and speaking practice; • practising comparative and superlative forms of adjectives through a text on personal

space in various cultures (from Handshake); • reading practice with an article “A stock of fish to stave off famine” describing

Vietnamese / Icelandic experience; • listening/speaking practice with recordings of children speaking English with diverse

accents (from Magic Time). My main purpose was to show students that cross-cultural activities do not interfere with language learning. To the contrary, they add diversity to lessons and can motivate learners. They can also be done at all levels of language learning and with students of all ages. The outcome of the course is in the form of the diploma theses that students will present at the end of the academic year. The theses will include their discussion of cross-cultural competence and lessons and/or activities which they have conducted during their teaching practice. Each will be followed by comments. One student who had already done all other courses and attended the seminar only as requirement for BA has already completed her thesis, under the title “The contribution of authentic reading materials to the development of cross-cultural awareness in teaching English at the intermediate level in secondary school”. To summarise I would say that the course seems a perfect way of convincing teacher trainees of the importance of cross-cultural awareness. They not only learn about it, they become experts. I intend to hold the same BA seminar next year.


Pilot module 2 A Business English course with an intercultural flavour By Rafn Kjartansson University of Akureyri, Iceland Target group The target group was first year university students, mostly aged 20, with a background of 8 years of English. The students are enrolled in courses in business management and tourism at the University of Akureyri, Iceland. Why add a cultural element to a business English course? My interest was stimulated by the fact that several chapters in the main textbook referred to culture-related topics which seemed worth expanding on. It would seem that the world of commerce is more progressive in relation to intercultural training than general education. It is now understood that in international business ventures it is not enough to leave it up to the financial experts to balance the books. Cultural differences may also influence the outcome. Another motivating factor was a course in intercultural studies at CELSE, the University of Manchester, which I attended in 1996, where I was introduced to some important names in this discipline; e.g. Claire Kramsch; Byram and, last but not least Geert Hofstede whose work became an important basis for the course. Building blocks for an intercultural approach I felt that two types of approach would be useful building blocks in a course with a strong intercultural element; I. A theoretical approach using a basic textbook for intercultural study II. Case studies where actual situations were analysed, attempting to link them to some

of the concepts introduced in the theoretical part. A) Theory The basic text chosen to represent the theoretical aspect of the course was Cultures and Organisations by Geert Hofstede (1994). The book opens with a chapter on definitions of culture, focusing on the metaphor of culture as mental programming, or software of the mind. The following chapters introduce Hofstede’s dimensions of culture (power distance; individualist/collective etc.), describing each cultural dimension in different social settings, e.g. family, school and workplace. B) Practice The core text here was Intercultural Interactions by Cushner and Brislin (1996). The students worked with clashes and conflicts resulting from cultural differences. Students were presented with selected incidents which they would discuss and analyse, and, in some cases, attempt to link with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and/or their own Icelandic situation.


Culture related texts/English usage/Academic study skills Texts relating to culture, as any texts that are of intrinsic interest to students, can be used for discussion to stimulate oral fluency, essay writing, vocabulary development etc. It is easy to combine intercultural study with the development of language skills. During first year at university, learning to work with an academic text (predicting, skimming, looking for main ideas, taking notes) is of crucial importance. In Icelandic universities, the majority of academic texts in most subjects are in English, so learning to cope with an academic text in English is an important survival skill which may well be decisive in terms of later success. Hofstede’s theoretical approach was particularly useful here, helping students to develop basic skills in approaching a text of an academic nature. Examination: Sample tasks The examination was both in oral and written form: The students were required to provide comments and definitions on topics like Hofstede’s “The onion of culture”, culture shock, ethnocentricity, nuclear families vs extended families etc. Longer essays/discussions were required on topics relating to dimensions of culture where it was generally attempted to link these to the students’ own Icelandic background. The students were also required to analyse situations where a problem arises due to cultural differences. Student feedback As Iceland is a low power distance country where the teacher is not a source of absolute authority, students generally feel free to make frank comments: initially, some students reacted negatively to the heavy reading load and its academic character which presented a sharp break from the approach they were used to in school. Gradually, however, a more mature attitude took shape as demonstrated by one student who, after the course, made the following comment: “To my surprise, I began to find these ideas interesting as I read more and began to understand them better.” Further Development An important part of further course development would be exploring in more detail the links between Hofstede and aspects of the business world, e.g. the cultural aspects of advertising, marketing, consumer relations etc. As a counterbalance to all this theory, there is another possible area of development: Iceland is not such a monocultural country as it used to be and a number of Icelandic companies are now involved in business ventures abroad in countries with diverse cultural backgrounds. Inviting guest speakers from such companies to describe their experiences “in the field” would further strengthen the practical aspect of the course. A third factor in course development is going to be the build-up of a decent intercultural study section in the library of the University of Akureyri.


Pilot Module 3 Intercultural Communication in EFL Methodology By Ildikó Lázár Department of English Applied Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE), Budapest, Hungary Course title and target audience Intercultural Communication in EFL Methodology is an elective course for third, fourth and fifth year students majoring in English. It presupposes the completion of our Methodology Foundation I seminar, the first semester of a two-part compulsory course for those studying towards a teaching degree. Background to the course My very initial interest in intercultural communication comes from a bad case of culture shock I went through in the US just after graduating as a teacher of English and French from ELTE. Since then I have always emphasised the role of culture, cultural awareness and intercultural communication in my English teaching and teacher training work. Recently I have also been conducting research to find out how much and what exactly teachers of English teach their students about culture at primary, secondary and tertiary level. The results of the study seem to show that the English teaching syllabi at primary and secondary schools are extremely exam-centered. Since exams do not usually test either cultural knowledge or intercultural communicative competence, teachers mostly focus on skills needed for taking the exam: grammatical and lexical competence. In most cases teachers either feel that they are not competent to teach about culture or they say they cannot squeeze it into the tight syllabus. They usually include cultural activities only when they want to spice up the lesson, but these activities are often confined to the occasional Beatles song, a picture of Big Ben or the Christmas pudding recipe once a year. This is certainly not enough to help students acquire the necessary abilities and skills for successful intercultural communication. This is why I believe that there is a need for incorporating intercultural training in teacher education, and that it would have a beneficial multiplying effect. Aims and experience The main themes of my course include coursebook analysis from an intercultural perspective as well as syllabus and lesson planning incorporating cultural elements. The course tries to balance theory and practice so that students become familiar with the basic theoretical work of the field and receive guidance and get practice in trying out activities with an (inter)cultural focus. Home readings discussed in class include articles/chapters by H. Douglas Brown, Michael Byram, Geert Hofstede, Claire Kramsch and Joyce Merrill Valdes. Activities include cultural awareness raising games, role-plays, and simulations as well as practice in modifying and/or supplementing exercises in currently available


coursebooks in order to show how any exercise can be turned into a practical and culturally enriching activity. Sample activities Comparing Hungarians and, for example, Americans based on Hofstede’s charts and tables on power distance and ambiguity tolerance; checking presentation of speech acts (greetings, complaints, compliments, etc.) in coursebooks and devising activities together to practice them; role-playing dialogues among people with different values, attitudes, and body language; watching sitcoms to observe the verbal and non-verbal differences between Hungarians’ and foreigners’ language use and behaviour and trying to explain these differences in light of the different value systems of several cultures. Actual outcomes The main assignment is a seminar paper, which is a written account of a small-scale classroom research project that the students had to work on during the whole term. The actual outcomes of the course that the students can take away include the seminar paper reviewing the literature, analyzing coursebooks or reflecting on data collected during observations and interviews, a materials file containing tried-out (inter)cultural activities and lesson plans with a cultural focus. Summary This course seems to be relevant and innovative in preparing students for their role as teachers because it tries to show theoretical and practical aspects of merging the teaching of language and culture instead of the former practice of training teachers of language and culture (Literature, Civilisation, etc.) separately. Students’ responses have been very positive so far and there is a great interest in attending the intercultural elective courses at the Department of English Applied Linguistics at ELTE. In the last two years, about half of the students in my Intercultural Communication in EFL Methodology have decided to write their theses about some aspect of intercultural communication training. But these courses are fairly new and they are optional, which means that not even half of the future English teachers graduating from ELTE in a year will get at least some training in incorporating intercultural communication into their teaching.


Pilot module 4 In-service teacher training course in intercultural communication. By Liljana Skopinskaja Tallinn Pedagogical University, Department of English, Estonia This course is designed for a one-day in-service teacher training seminar at the In-service Centre of Tallinn Pedagogical University in Estonia. It is intended for teachers of English at secondary and upper-secondary schools of Estonia. The teachers enrolled for this course come from various parts of the country, have a different professional background with a length of employment ranging from one year up to 30 years, and work in village schools as well as elite town schools. My initial interest to set up a special course in intercultural awareness and communication was triggered off by the research of two of my undergraduate students. In the course of 1998-2000, they conducted research among 86 teachers and 117 secondary school children. Their research showed that the most significant source of cultural information for pupils is their classes of English, and this is a meaningful fact for FL teachers. Their questionnaire study also indicated that teachers treated mostly those topics that were present in the textbooks, and the themes discussed there usually concerned the large C culture approach. At the same time teachers considered raising their students’ cultural/intercultural awareness as a very important aspect of their work and were willing to include culture-based activities in their lessons. The aims of this INSETT course are to offer EL teachers a theoretical insight into the key concepts of intercultural teaching and learning and to present a typology of culture-awareness raising activities that could be incorporated in their regular lesson planning process. This system of intercultural activities is based upon the tripartite division of culture into civilisation, behaviour & speech patterns (functions) and text structure and skills (D. Holló and I. Lázár 2000). The items under “Civilisation” help students construct background knowledge about the target culture and also that of their own. Items here comprise elements of both large C culture and small c culture, including simple facts of everyday life. The second division, i.e. behaviour and speech patterns, aims at fostering appropriate conduct and avoidance of being misinterpreted. The third category is concerned with culture-dependent features of text structure in the two languages, i.e. the target language and the students’ native language.


Sample activities include, among others: I. Civilisation focus • Where is my answer? – pairing off Wh-question slips and appropriate answer slips. • Superstitions – matching halves of complete superstitions and comparing their

meanings with corresponding equivalents in the students’ native culture. II. Behaviour and speech patterns focus • Universal/Personal/Cultural – discussing universal, personal and cultural features of

behaviour patterns. • Intercultural generalizations – evaluating generalizations about different cultures. • Culture assimilators – comparing behaviour patterns, i.e. social and classroom ones, in

different cultures. • Early, on time, or late? – comparing the concept of time in different cultures. • Critical incidents – discussing and comparing the presented behaviour patterns with

those in the students’ own culture. III. Text structure focus • Proverbs – discussing the similarities and differences between the target language

proverbs and their native language equivalents. • Strange dialogues – comparing cultural differences between “typically” English and

“typically” Estonian conversations. To sum it up, this short-term INSETT course serves a three-fold purpose: 1) enhancing the teachers’ professional development; 2) giving the teachers some ideas how to incorporate intercultural activities in their EL

lesson design; 3) helping the teachers guide their pupils’ language-and-culture learning process, a term

coined by M.Byram and C.Morgan (1994). References Byram, M., C. Morgan et al. (1994) Teaching-and-Learning Language-and-Culture. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Holló, D. and I. Lázár. (2000) “Take the bull in the china shop by the horns: teaching culture through language”. In: Folio, 6/1, 4-8.


Appendix 6: Cultural content in coursebooks By Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich The aim of this presentation was to look at some aspects of the component of cultural studies in the coursebooks of French and English. In the first part French coursebooks were discussed briefly and illustrated with sample materials. The French have never had problems as to what cultural content should be included in the coursebooks of French. The language and civilisation are seen as inseparable and handbooks of French as a foreign language have often been handbooks instructing in French culture at the same time. This can be illustrated with a brief look at major French coursebooks in the last 50 years. • 1953 Mauger Cours de langue et de civilisation françaises, parts I, III and IV

Actually, part one contains less cultural material than one might expect from a contemporary point of view – the book is mostly grammar and vocabulary oriented. But further on in the language development the course does what it promises in the first place – teaches about French culture. Part IV is entitled La France et ses écrivains!

• 1964/ 1967 A Paris, En France

List of contents from A Paris and En France shows the predominance of topics on French culture.

• 1978 Méthode Orange

Cultural content here is perhaps less prominent, but still present. Incidentally, “the other” is represented by aliens; similarly in an English coursebook Kernel Two

• 1984 Sans frontières: méthode de français

The cultural content is also less pronounced when compared with the earlier coursebooks, but obviously French centred.

• 1997 Panorama – French cultural content is still very prominent. The book addresses

increasingly multi-cultural character of France. The English have never had a similar sense of English language being a means of teaching about English culture. I have not been able to trace a coursebook that would aim to teach about British culture in any way resembling the French coursebooks discussed above. A backwards glance shows, if anything, a certain reluctance or ambivalence towards cultural studies in EFL. L. G. Alexander’s Practice and Progress, the most popular coursebook for years in many European countries, was devoid of any cultural content. A sample page from a popular communicative coursebook from 1990s shows that currently there is more interest in


providing knowledge of the world and target language culture, but ICC is given very little attention. In general one may speak of three tendencies in coursebook design: • Language and target language civilisation; • Language and the world; • Language only. The first two modes involve cultural studies which can be: • English as the language of the United Kingdom and the former empire; • English as the international language. This involves cultural components from all over

the world, occasionally focusing on cross-cultural communicative competence. When it comes to British centred coursebooks, they either tend to present a traditional image of Britain, or their authors are sometimes motivated by political correctness and the desire not to present British culture as superior. Hence English is often presented as the language used anywhere with a strong attempt to be neutral about cultural values. The end result is, more often than not, the absence of any cultural component, and, even more so, intercultural communicative competence. The study of three popular coursebooks in Poland (Blueprint, Strategies, Kernel) conducted by a Polish scholar Irmina Wawrzyczek (“An Ideological Agenda in Language Teaching: English Coursebooks since the 1980s”, The New Review Issue One, 1995) and her two graduate students (Muciek and Kozuch) shows, among other things, the authors of Blueprint as having tried too hard swinging the pendulum not to sound as if they were recommending the superiority of traditional British culture. The authors of the paper observe “If the places and events presented in the coursebook [Blueprint] look like an introductory course in world geography combined with the catalogue of a trans-world travel agency, the British and non-British people encountered in the language teaching materials resemble an affirmative action programme in support of women and non-whites. As Britain is now a multi-racial society, it is of course appropriate that ethnic groups should also appear in representation of British society, such as those offered by EFL coursebooks. But in the books under discussion here, the emphasis on non-white persons bears little relation to actual demographic statistics, and few of the situations depicted can hardly be said to be the typical common experience of ethnic minorities in Britain.” [...] “It is clear that British-produced EFL coursebooks do not convey a balanced and valid picture of contemporary British culture, and instead reflect current British intellectual and political obsessions. Far from being de-cultured or de-anglicised, they are in fact permeated with ideologies currently at the centre of the post-colonial preoccupation of today’s Britain. The resulting effect is the creation of a very specific – and indeed misleading – reflection of the experience of being British, while ignoring social conventions and rituals still at the core of contemporary British culture. They arbitrarily and selectively problematize Britain, in fact the whole globe, and postulate what Britain should be without telling accurately what it is – and their usefulness as coursebooks is thereby undermined.”


If we look at coursebooks from the point of view of intercultural communicative competence, which we understand as the ability to relate in English to people from various cultures rather than native speakers of English, the situation seems quite unsatisfactory. In the pilot study which Ildikó Lázár, Liljana Skopinskaja and myself conducted in our three countries we asked the respondents’ opinion on the usefulness of coursebooks which they use in teaching cultural issues. In Poland quite a few respondents said that Headway is a useful coursebook in this respect. However, it seems that what they like about it is the presence of Culture with capital C. What does Headway contain that is perceived by teachers as the cultural component? (This brief analysis of cultural content concerns Headway Intermediate and Headway Upper Intermediate). It has quite a lot of materials drawn from a traditionally understood concept of culture: • an extract from a play by William Shakespeare • a recording of auditions for Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield • biographies of William Shakespeare and Jeffrey Archer • a review of John Fowles’ The Collector • a fragment from Aldoux Huxley’s Brave New World • fragments by Somerset Maugham • an article about Jack Higgins • an activity about the life of Ernest Hemingway. The coursebook also attempts to provide information about the world such as: • a listening exercise about China • a discussion point about various languages in the world • a speaking activity concerning periods in world history. None of these topics, however useful they might be to the development of the students’ general knowledge, could build their intercultural communicative competence. There are, however, several topics in Headway which could be useful in the development of cross-cultural awareness, such as • national stereotypes (English, but also other nationalities) • an article about Swedes telling jokes about the Scottish (leading to a conclusion that

telling jokes about other nationalities is a risky business) • an activity with proverbs • a listening exercise about an experience of working in Tanzania • a discussion point about superstitions • a listening exercise about arranged marriages in India. All these topics have a language learning focus so they serve two purposes: cultural awareness and language development.


Teachers often say that they are reluctant about teaching cross-cultural awareness and competence due to the single lack of materials. But while this is to some extent true, the other truth is that cross-cultural awareness can be taught with the existing materials provided proper use is made of them. An example can be given in a coursebook for children Magic Time (Longman). The business world has taken the issue of cross-cultural awareness much more seriously than teacher training and English in general education, possibly because the lack of intercultural skills may translate itself directly into losses for the company. Coursebooks in business English often address the issue of cross-cultural awareness and a very good example can be OUP coursebook Handshake. The concluding remark on the issue of cultural content in coursebooks is that while they generally do not provide enough material for teaching ICC, good use could be made of the coursebooks used, provided teachers are sensitised to the importance of ICC and trained how to include it in their teaching using the currently available sources.


Appendix 7: Exams vs curricula By Rafn Kjartansson The language culture connection The presentation began by emphasising the parallel between language acquisition and culture acquisition. How, for example, the grown-up language learner is likely to retain a foreign accent – an echo of his native language. Similarly, people who move to another society and adapt to its culture are likely to retain some features from their native background – the way a room is painted in a new colour, but yet the previous layer may shine through in places. Special position of English We note the special place of English which is not restricted to a particular national culture – learning English involves varied cultural orientation as the language is likely to be used in wide-ranging situations. The teaching of English, therefore, invites us to adopt a multicultural approach. This is indeed a worthy aim. The gap between aims and actual practice Since the cultural orientation of foreign language learning is undisputed, it is only natural that foreign language curricula attempt to deal with the cultural connotations of the foreign language. In general, however, there tends to be a gap between declared aims in course descriptions and syllabuses, on the one hand, and classroom practice and the design of examinations, on the other. It has long been noted that education tends towards stability and resistance to change: This is paradoxical, since we would like to think of education as the vehicle of new ideas, but it is in fact often slow to adopt innovation. One result of the conservative character of education is the tendency towards a time lag. This time lag can occur in stages: Stage one: It is most likely that a new idea has been around for a considerable period of time when it finally finds favour with the syllabuses writers of official education systems. Only when an innovation has been well tested in the community, is it seen as advisable to allow it to be presented to the younger generation. This of course is sensible caution; a kind of quality control which is supposed to ensure that it is only ideas that work which will be taught to the young. The downside of this situation, however, is that as a result of this time-consuming quality control, the education system may hold back development. This is the cost of caution, so to speak. Many would maintain, though, that it is better to err on the side of caution and that is exactly what education systems often do. This brings us to the second delaying factor. Stage two: Even though new ideas are actually written up in syllabuses, there is another level of inertia to be overcome; this time within the schools themselves which may well


carry on the way they always have done and purposely neglect certain innovations that have been introduced into their syllabuses. The place of culture teaching So how does culture in the classroom fit into the system? Is it at Stage one where it is still waiting to be introduced into the syllabus, or has it moved into the next phase, Stage two, where it is already expressed in the curriculum, but waiting at the classroom door hoping for an invitation to enter? The third and happiest option would be that intercultural education has overcome all delaying factors and is fully functional in the classroom, the way communicative language teaching is gaining universal support within the language teaching profession, as this approach is seen to serve the needs of a global community. The paradox of culture teaching and CLT There has indeed been impressive progress in language teaching, but has the teaching of culture gone hand in hand with this development? I think our research project may have shown that in culture teaching there is still a time lag and that the teaching of culture has not kept up with the rapid advance in communicative language teaching. This is to be regretted, because teaching culture is teaching people to communicate and should be closely associated with the latest developments in CLT. In fact, training students in intercultural skills should be seen as a necessary aspect of communicative language teaching. The paradox we are faced with is that this does not appear to be the case, in spite of the fact that official syllabuses do at least pay lip service to the cultural element of language teaching. “Words, words, words” The game of word association implies that the words that come to you most readily reveal the ideas that are uppermost in your mind – the more often you mention something, the more important it seems to you. When I played a variation on this game using the secondary syllabus of foreign language teaching in Iceland (114 pages), I found that by far the most frequent keywords that turned up related to the spoken language – 402 ccurrences out of a total of 1724 keywords, or 23%. For comparison, culture yielded 135 occurrences, or 8%, and translation, which still features prominently in secondary examinations in a number of schools, only featured a meagre 2.5%.


How is the curriculum reflected in examinations? The emphasis on spoken language appears to reflect added interest in communicative language teaching, encouraging interactivity between teachers and students and among the students themselves by means of group work. This emphasis, however, does not appear to be adequately represented in the format of secondary examinations which tend to be mostly written. Oral examinations only play a minor part, if they feature at all. Translation, also, is prominent in examinations in some schools, although it is given a negligible weight (2.5%) in the curriculum, according to my keyword search. Broad objectives of secondary education as defined in the national curriculum The Upper Secondary School Act in Iceland describes the objectives of secondary education as follows: • to encourage the overall development of the students in order to prepare them as well

as possible for active participation in a democratic society • to prepare the students for employment and further study • to strive to develop responsibility, broad-mindedness, initiative, self-confidence and

tolerance among its students, train them in disciplined and independent work practices and critical thought, instruct them in appreciation of cultural values and encourage them to seek knowledge continuously.

These are indeed worthy aims and encouraging for language teachers who wish to make use of intercultural study to encourage tolerant attitudes among their students. And the following reference to a recent article in Morgunblaðið, Iceland’s most widely read newspaper, should bring home to us that this aspect of education is highly relevant to our modern society. In the summer of 2000, two Icelandic students of anthropology carried out a survey of the attitudes of different age groups of people in Iceland to immigrants and foreigners. The findings of this study were published in January this year. The researchers found that there was significant variation in the way different age groups regarded immigrants and, much to their surprise, they found that the most negative attitudes to immigrants were held by younger people. “Our results”, said one of the two researchers, “strongly indicate that prejudice increases as you move into the younger age groups and the youngest group in our study appears to be more negative towards immigrants than older people. We often heard people state that they were not at all prejudiced against immigrants, they just did not want them in their neighbourhood. It is our opinion”, said the researcher, ”that the education system needs to respond to this situation where younger people are showing the strongest prejudice. This will have to be done by an increased emphasis on multicultural education already in the primary school as our society is moving rapidly in the direction of multiculturalism”.


Appendix 8: Assessment of intercultural communicative competence By Liljana Skopinskaja The aim of this presentation was to give an overview of different ways of assessing intercultural competence. Yet it has to be admitted that assessment of intercultural competence is the aspect of cultural studies, which is given the least attention in the relevant scientific literature. Apart from some articles or chapters in monographs by Valette (1977), Seelye (1994), Fantini (1997), Meyer (quoted in Byram 1994), other scholars do not address this subject at all. A valuable exception in this respect is M. Byram’s research (1994; 1997) which distinguishes three areas in intercultural competence to be assessed: knowledge, attitudes and behaviour or skills. In order to communicate interculturally, students need to have two kinds of knowledge, each of which can be subdivided (Byram 1994): 1) factual knowledge: divided into a) minimal objective knowledge of the historical,

geographical, and sociological phenomena; and b) a more detailed knowledge of the causes and effects of the aforementioned phenomena.

2) appreciation of the significance of the facts, divided into: a) description of the

appearance and position of the phenomena in contemporary life; and b) explanation of the significance of the phenomena in shared cultural understandings/meanings.

Techniques for assessing factual knowledge include both the so-called norm-referenced tests, such as multiple-choice questions, true-and-false statements, highly structured question-forms which allow only specific answers by filling in gaps, or answering short factual questions, essay-writing; and the criterion-referenced, deep learning knowledge tests. The assessment of the latter (Byram 1997) involves techniques requiring comment and analysis, e.g. analysis of comments by two people describing their feelings of discomfort in a conversation where one feels being cut off and the other feels that his/her interlocutor is too slow to respond. The purpose of intercultural communicative training is to foster a positive attitude towards FLL and the people from other communities. The assessment of attitudes may run into difficulties unless it takes the form of assessing the students’ empathy. Empathy has both affective and cognitive aspects (Byram 1994). The former involves the ability to decentre, and it can be evaluated by the degree to which students recognize the relativity of different cognitive perspectives, including their own. The cognitive dimension of empathy can be assessed by the degree to which students are able to explain factual knowledge and its significance from within the cognitive perspective of the foreign culture. Both aspects of empathy could be elicited by the semantic differential method (Seelye 1994); Grice’s approach (Seelye 1994), by asking learners to make and explain a choice of preference as part of assessed task (Byram 1997); or by asking learners to reflect on and analyse different conventions of interaction in the form of a portfolio.


Definitions of culture usually include some reference to the shared knowledge possessed by a given social group to behave acceptably to its members. A distinction can be made between the behaviour of which native speakers are consciously aware and that which is unconscious. The former comprises different norms of interaction and notions of politeness and social hierarchy (Byram 1994). Unconscious behaviour includes notions of personal space, turn-taking conventions, eye-contact rules between interlocutors. There are three aspects of behaviour/skills that could be assessed: skills of interpreting and relating; skills of discovery and interaction; and the skills of critical evaluation on the basis of explicit criteria (Byram 1997). These skills or behaviour could be tested either in the oral form (e.g. interviewing, simulations) or written mode (e.g. mediation between conflicting interpretations of phenomena; portfolio format; analysis of critical incidents). To sum it up, assessment usually has a backwash effect, i.e. an influential effect on teaching and learning. Therefore it is important to consider the aspect of assessment in culture teaching alongside the discussion of general problems of intercultural communicative training. References Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., C. Morgan et al. (1994) Teaching-and-Learning Language-and-Culture. Clevedon: Multilingual Matterss. Fantini, A.E. (ed.) (1997) New Ways in Teaching Culture. Alexandria: TESOL. Seelye, H.N. (1994) Teaching Culture: Strategies for Intercultural Communication. Linclonwood, Illinois: National Textbook Company. Valette, R.M. (1977) Modern Language Testing. Sec.ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.


Appendix 9: Selected bibliography / Bibliographie sélective Aleksandrowicz-Pedich, L., Lázár, I. & Skopinskaja, L. (2000) “Cross-national study on cross-cultural awareness”. Poland: Network. Vol. 3, No. 3. Alptekin, C. (1996) Target-language culture in EFL materials. In: T. Hedge & N. Whitney (eds.), Power, Pedagogy & Practice. (pp. 53-61). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Originally published in ELT Journal 47/2, 1993.] Baxter, J. (1982) English for Intercultural Competence. In: Landis, D. & Bhagat, R. (eds.) (1996) Handbook of Intercultural Training. London: Sage. Beneke, J. (2000) Intercultural competence. In: U. Bliesener (ed.), Training the Trainers. International Business Communication Vol. 5. Carl Duisberg Verlag. Bennett, M.J. (1997) How Not to Be a Fluent Fool: Understanding the Cultural Dimension of Language. In: A.E. Fantini (ed.), New Ways in Teaching Culture (pp. 16-21). Alexandria: TESOL. Berting, J. & Villain-Gandossi, C. (1994) The role of stereotypes in international relations – A systematic introductory analysis. In: Berting, J. & Villain-Gandossi, C. (Eds.) The role of stereotypes in international relations. Rotterdam: RISBO. Brown, H. D. (1987) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (2nd edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. London: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. and Morgan, C. (1994) Teaching-and-Learning Language-and-Culture. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters 100. Cushner, K. and Brislin, R. (1996). Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide (2nd edition). London: Sage. Fantini, A.E. (ed.) (1997). New Ways in Teaching Culture. Alexandria: TESOL. Fenner, A. and Newby, D. (2000) Approaches to Material Design in European Textbooks: Implementing Principles of Authenticity, Learner Autonomy, Cultural Awareness. European Centre for Modern Languages of the Council of Europe. Hofstede, G. (1994) Cultures and Organizations – Software of the Mind. London: Harper Collins Publishers. Hofstede, G. (1986) “Cultural differences in teaching and learning”. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10.


Holló, D. and Lázár, I. (2000b) “Taking the Bull in the China Shop by the Horns – Teaching Culture through Language” Folio. Vol 6/1, pp. 4-8. Jandt, F.E. (1995) Intercultural Communication. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Jong, de W. (1996) Open Frontiers: Teaching English in an Intercultural Context. Heinemann. Kramsch, C. (1998) Language and Culture. Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (1994) Context and Culture in Language Teaching (2nd edition). Oxford University Press. Lado, R. (1957) Linguistics Across Cultures. University of Michingan Press. Landis, D. & Bhagat, R. (eds.) (1996) Handbook of Intercultural Training. London: Sage. Levine, D.R. & Adelman, M.B. (1993) Beyond Language – Cross-Cultural Communication (2nd edition). Englewood Cliffs: Regents/Prentice Hall. Lussier, D. (1997) “Domaine de référence pour l’évaluation de la compétence culturelle en langues”. Revue ÉLA – Didactologie des langues-cultures, 106: 231-246. Meyer, M. (1991) Developing transcultural competence: Case studies of advanced foreign language learners. In: D. Buttjes and M. Byram (eds.), Mediating Languages and Cultures: Towards an Intercultural Theory of Foreign Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mooij, M. (1997) Global Marketing and Advertising. SAGE Publishing. Nemetz-Robinson, G.L. (1985) Cross-Cultural Understanding, Processes and Approaches for Foreign Language and Bilingual Educators. Prentice Hall. Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct. William Morrow and Company Inc. Seelye, H.N. (1993) Teaching Culture – Strategies for Intercultural Communication. Lincolnwood, Illinois, National Textbook Comapany. Valdes, J.M. (ed.) (1986) Culture Bound: Bridging the Cultural Gap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collections of useful cultural awareness activities Bowers, R. (1992) “Memories, metaphors, maxims, and myths: language learning and cultural awareness”. ELTJ Volume 46/1: 29-38. Council of Europe (1995) All Different – All Equal, Education Pack. Strasbourg: European Youth Centre.


Council of Europe. (1996) All Different – All Equal, Domino. (2nd edition) Strasbourg: European Youth Centre. Cushner, K. and Brislin, R. (1996) Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide (2nd edition) London: Sage. Fantini, A.E. (ed.) (1997) New Ways in Teaching Culture. Alexandria: TESOL. Fenner, A. and Newby, D. (2000) Approaches to Material Design in European Textbooks: Implementing Principles of Authenticity, Learner Autonomy, Cultural Awareness. European Centre for Modern Languages of the Council of Europe. Holló, D. and Lázár, I. (2000) “The neglected element: Teaching culture in the EFL classroom”. NovELTy. Vol.7, No.1: 76-84. Tomalin, B. and Stempleski, S. (1993) Cultural Awareness. Oxford University Press. Valdes, J.M. (ed.) (1986) Culture Bound: Bridging the Cultural Gap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Appendix 10: Network plans Network 1: Teachers’ Views on ICC in Foreign Language Teaching (English/French) – Research Project Réseau 1: Opinion des professeurs de langues étrangères (anglais et français) face à la CIC – Projet de recherche Member of the co-ordinating team Membre de l’équipe de coordination

Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich, Bialystok University, Poland

Spokesperson Responsable

Dora Issaias, Pedagogical Institute, Cyprus

Members Membres

Janeta Draghicescu, University of Craiova, Romania

Nada Sabec, University of Maribor, Slovenia Description of objectives / Description des objectifs Qualitative research into views and attitudes of secondary school teachers of English and French towards intercultural communicative competence in foreign language teaching to be carried out in several European countries. Recherche qualitative sur l’opinion et l’attitude des professeurs d’anglais et de français du niveau secondaire face à la compétence interculturelle communicative dans l’enseignement des langues étrangères dans plusieurs pays de l’Europe. Expected results / Résultats attendus Analysis and publication of the results with recommendations for pre-service and in-service teacher training. Analyse et publication des résultats accompagnés de recommandations pour les professeurs en formation initiale et continue. Action plan / Plan d’action What? / Quoi? When? / Quand? Who? / Qui? Designing the questionnaire Elaboration du questionnaire

April-June 2001 Avril-Juin 2001

All Tous

Piloting and validating the questionnaire Validation du questionnaire

July-November 2001 Juillet-Novembre 2001

All Tous

Preparing and presenting a proposed version for the December meeting Mise en forme et présentation à la réunion de décembre

December 2001 Décembre 2001

Member of the co-ordinating team (Lucyna) and the spokesperson (Dora) Experts et membres coordinateurs

Administering the questionnaire Diffusion du questionnaire

February-March 2002 Février-Mars 2002

All Tous

Analysis of the results Analyse des résultats

April-September 2002 Avril-Septembre 2002

All Tous


Network 2:

L(atvja) E(spanya) A(ndorra) F(rance)

Membres du groupe / Members of the team • Carpa Röjerman, Elisabeth, Cap d’Área d’Innovació, Formació i Recursos, Andorra • Carreras Nadal, Aina, Asesora de formación permanente del Centre de Professors de

Palma, Espanya • Garcias, Jacques, Rectorat de l’Académie de Nice, France • Kalve, Helena, Conseil expert auprès de l’Education Nationale, Lettonie. Rapporteur / Spokesperson • Carpa Röjerman, Elisabeth, Cap d’Área d’Innovació, Formació i Recursos, Andorra 1. Description des objectifs / Description of objectives Elaborer un curricula de formation continue en dégageant la dimension interculturelle pour les formateurs d’enseignants de langues vivantes. To draft an in-service teacher training syllabus focusing on the intercultural dimension for teacher trainers of modern languages. 2. Résultats attendus / Expected results Publication des expériences pilotes menées dans chaque pays membre et d’un document final. Publication of pilot experiences dealt with in each member state and a final document.


3. Plan d’action / Action plan Quoi/What ? Quand/When ? Qui/Who ? Recueil de documentation Gathering information

Avril-septembre 2001 April-September 2001

Tous All

Mise en commun et définition des objectifs Sharing information and defining objectives

Septembre-décembre 2001 September-December 2001

Tous All

Planification du contenu et mise en commun Contents planning and sharing

Décembre 2001-avril 2002 December 2001-April 2002

Tous All

Expérimentation dans chaque pays Experimentation in each country

Avril 2002-mars 2003 April 2002-March 2003

Tous All

Evaluation du curricula Syllabus assessment

Avril-mai 2003 April-May 2003

Réunion d’experts Experts meeting

Elaboration du document final Drafting the final document

Mai-décembre 2003 May-December 2003

Tous All

4. Communication en continu / Permanent communication Utilisation du courrier électronique et du forum à accès restreint au groupe. E-mail and forum with restricted access Réunion d’experts Experts meetings


Network 3: Teaching materials for intercultural awareness Member of the coordinating team

Ildikó Lázár, Eötvös Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary

Spokesperson Martina Huber-Kriegler, Pädagogische Akademie des Bundes, Graz, Austria

Members John Strange, Hogeschool van Utrecht, Netherlands

Joseph Chryshochoos, Pedagogical Institute, Piraeus, Greece

Nancy Tumposky, Paedagogical Faculty Comenius University, Bratislava

Description of objectives To create and produce widely applicable cultural awareness units for pre- and in-service teacher education, based on and organised according to underlying theoretical principles. Expected results A range of units, including teacher’s guide (and linguistic activities); preferably presented on video. Action plan What When Who formulate theoretical framework early June all explore / collect / develop / categorise / evaluate… scenarios (cultural clashes)

early September all

produce pilot unit early October John evaluate / revise pilot unit early December all agree on working format December Ildikó, Martina

(+ all) develop further units 2002 all


Network 4: Intercultural Competence in the ESL Classroom Members Member of the coordinating team

Ildikó Lázár, ELTE Budapest, Hungary

Spokesperson Erlendína Kristjánsson, University of Iceland, Iceland Members Dorota Potocka, University of Bialystok, Poland Judit Borbély, ELTE Budapest, Hungary Olga Zderadicková, University of Pardubice, Czech Republic Mariana Gerova, Language School B. Brecht, Bulgaria Bengt Spowe, Uppsala University, Sweden Description of objectives To design a course that combines theory and practice of teaching and learning English as a foreign language in a multicultural classroom and which is focused on intercultural communicative competence. Duration of Course: 10-15 weeks (90 minutes per week) Target Groups: Pre-service trainees In-service trainees Expected results A course on intercultural competence Publications Action plan What When Who

Phase 1 Designing a survey1: Brainstorming for topics. Each member compiles a list of possible survey questions

End of June 2001

All

Phase 2 Finalising the first draft of the survey

September 2001

All

Phase 3 Pilot study of the draft survey Finalising the final draft Suggestions on course content and material

October -November 2001

All

Phase 4 Final Survey administration in the six countries2 Network meeting and report to members

December 2001

All

Phase 5 Survey analysis

January 2002

All

Phase 6 Course design: content and materials Piloting and finalising the course

February- June 2002 September – December 2002

All

1 The survey is aimed at providing ideas on the contents of the course. 2 The subjects will be pre-service students and current teachers


Network 5: Creating a tool for the measurement of ICC Member of the coordinating team

Rafn Kjartansson, University of Akureyri, Iceland

Spokesperson Ray Facciol, Education Division, Malta Member Irina Iakovleva, Moscow State Linguistic University Description of objectives • Create topics of focus (examinable content) • Design a common specification grid • Produce model tests for different levels Expected results • Model examination papers • A report on proceedings • Feedback on sampled results Action plan What When Who Create bibliography general lang. testing ICC culture specific manuals

June 2001 June 2001 June 2001

Ray / Irina Rafn Ray (French) Irina (English)

Create focus points: from theo. sources from c.s. manuals from non-ed. sources from stud. manuals

August 2001 August 2001 August 2001 August 2001

Rafn Ray / Irina Rafn / Ray / Irina Ray

Design specification grid: examples of sp. grids contribution to content axis discuss & propose model exercises graduate qs and exs consider extended versions (including language integrated component)

June-July 2001 December 2001 December 2001 April 2002 April 2002

Ray Rafn / Ray / Irina Rafn / Ray / Irina Rafn / Ray / Irina Rafn / Ray / Irina

Create tests: English: – 12 yr olds – Univ. 1st Yr French: – 12 yr olds – Univ. 1st Yr

May 2002 May 2002

Irina Ray


Network 6: Evaluation of coursebooks / Teaching materials currently used at intermediate level (secondary education and PRESETT) from the intercultural perspective Member of the coordinating team

Liljana Skopinskaja,Tallinn Pedagogical University, Estonia

Spokesperson Karl Bauerfeind, Thuringian State Institute , Germany Members Lina Guobiene, Vilnius Pedagogical University, Lithuania Sirle Kivihall, Tallinn Pedagogical University, Estonia Jean-Baptiste Kremer, Centre universitaire, Luxembourg Hilde Beate Lia, Telemark University College, Norway Description of objectives The objectives are the following: • to establish criteria for coursebook/teaching materials evaluation from the intercultural

perspective; • to carry out the evaluation of 2 different sets of coursebooks/teaching materials

currently used at intermediate level of secondary education (age group 13-16) in English and/or French instruction in the respective countries;

• to draw up a list of strengths and weaknesses of the currently used teaching materials in terms of their intercultural content;

• to provide recommendations for teachers of English and French for incorporating intercultural awareness and communication in their lesson design, adapting and supplementing the existing teaching materials;

• to write a report about the research work. Expected results The expected results are: • evaluation of the currently used coursebooks/teaching materials from the intercultural

perspective; • recommendations for secondary school teachers and teacher trainees for incorporating

intercultural awareness-raising and communication activities in their regular classwork; • written report of the research work.


Action plan What When Who Reading relevant literature and creating a bibliography list about intercultural evaluation of FL teaching materials

April-May 2001 Team

Establishing criteria for the evaluation of the currently used teaching materials from the intercultural perspective

June-September 2001 Team

Evaluation of the two sets of teaching materials used at intermediate level of secondary education in the respective countries

October-December 2001 Team

Outlining the guidelines for teachers of English and French for incorporating intercultural activities in their lesson design, adapting and supplementing the existing materials

January-December 2002 Team

Elaboration and writing a report of the research January-September 2003 Team


Appendix 11: Participants’ comments on the workshop Participants were asked to evaluate the day’s work on a short informal feedback sheet at the end of the day on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. A selection of their comments follows below. 1st workshop day: “Very good quality of presentations and overall organization.” “Thank you for a very stimulating introduction to the subject. I appreciate the planning and the background work, I’m looking forward to the rest of the workshop.” “Thanks for all the interesting materials, activities, input… but could the room be aired during the breaks?” “All the sessions have been very interesting, but could we finish on time?” “The ‘fun’ stereotyping poem was not a productive activity. It would have been useful to know the purpose of the group activities before embarking on them. The timing of the sessions was appropriate and well-kept, which is always a bonus at such an event.” “A good beginning. Varied: group work alternating with ‘lectures’. This is very important. I hope the following areas will be covered: English/French as lingua franca, an investigation of negotiation, not just presentation and acceptance of cultural differences, it’s ICC after all. What a friendly group of animators!” “Would have been a help to have copies of the ‘over-heads’ beforehand to make notes on during presentations.” “The workshop is very fascinating indeed… however, there are two different approaches here that sometimes intervene with each other: The practical (how?) and the theoretical (why?). Both are important, but my interest lies in the first. For me it’s the question of ‘how?’ rather than ‘why?’ that is interesting.” 2nd workshop day: “The practical side of my desires has been satisfied today. I especially enjoyed the activities session and hearing about the modules you have been working on.” “The workshop content is excellent, but our hotel is too far away.” “Tout a été très intéressant et très utile.” “Please photocopy all the transparencies: This will ease our job of having to write like mad.”


“The presentation on the assessment of intercultural communicative competence used too old research materials. And let’s move from superficial mono-cultural perspectives towards multiculturalism.” “I found the presentation on the assessment of intercultural communicative competence quite a good theoretical underpinning for practical strategies.” 4th workshop day: “J’ai trouvé la méthodologie de l’organisation de l’atelier très réussie. Le problème de la CCI est très important et soulève des phénomènes d’une grande complexité morale, politique, idéologique. L’approche pédagogique devrait être très souple. Il est très important de former des enseignants dans l’esprit de la création de compréhension mutuelle avec une relation sous-jacente entre deux ou plusieurs cultures. Cet atelier a mis des accents nécessaires pour aborder les problèmes de formation de futurs professeurs en fonction. J’attends avec impatience le suivi.” “Interesting, giving a lot of food for thought.” “Well-organized, good overall structure of workshop, competent team which seems to well complement each other’s strengths and focuses of interests. Very good, clear instructions from coordinator who is regularly pulling strings together. Day 2 was terribly exhausting: the original schedule with activities after lunch should have been adhered to. It’s virtually impossible to listen to such abstract concepts for a whole day!… Also, all handouts from the team should have been translated into French beforehand. I felt sorry for the French speakers a lot of times!”


Appendix 12: List of participants / Liste des participants Andorra / Andorre Elisabeth Carpa Ršjerman Head of the In-service Teacher Training Service, Ministeri d’Educación, Joventut i Esports, C/ Bonaventura Armengol, 6-8, 1r pis, Andorra la Vella Andorra E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: French / Français Austria / Autriche Martina Huber-Kriegler Sprachlehrerin & PDL-Trainerin, Pädagogische Akademie des Bundes, Hasnerplatz 12, A-8010 Graz, Austria E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Bulgaria / Bulgarie Mariana Gerova Language School “B. Brecht”, 1, Pirdop str BG-4400, Pazardzik, Bulgaria E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Cyprus / Chypre Dora Isaia Teacher Trainer, Pedagogical Institute, CY-Nicosia, Cyprus E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Czech Republic / République tchèque Olga Zderadickovà Department of English and American Studies, Faculty of Humanities, University of Pardubice, Studentská 84, CZ-532 10 Pardubice, Czech Republic E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Estonia / Estonie Sirle Kivihall Language Centre, Tallinn Pedagogical University, Narva mnt 29, 112 Tallinn Estonia E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais


Liljana Skopinskaja Tallinn Pedagogical University, Department of English, Narva Road 25, EE10120 Tallinn, Estonia E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais France Jacques Garcias Inspecteur d’Académie, Académies de Nice et Aix-Marseille, Rectorat de l’Académie d’Aix, F-Nice, France E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: French / Français Germany / Allemagne Karl Bauerfeind Thüringer Institut für Lehrerfortbildung, Lehrplanentwicklung und Medien (ThILLM), Heinrich-Heine-Allee 2-4, D-99438 Bad Berka, Germany E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Greece / Grèce Joseph Chryshochoos Teacher trainer, Pedagogical Institute, 94 Pindou street,GR-18345 Moschato / Piraeus, Greece E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Hungary / Hongrie Judit Borbély Senior lecturer, ELTE BTK, Ajtósi Dürer sor 19-21, H-1146 Budapest, Hungary E-mail: - Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Ildikó Lázár Assistant Lecturer, ELTE, Department of English Applied Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University, Ajtósi Dürer sor 19-21, H-1146 Budapest, Hungary E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Iceland / Islande Rafn Kjartansson University of Akureyri, Solborg, IS-600 Akureyri, Iceland E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais


Erlendina Kristjansson Teacher, Menntaskolinn Vid Hamrahlid, Hamrahlid, IS-105 Reykjavik, Iceland E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Latvia / Lettonie Helena Kalve Chair of Foreign Languages, Latvian Academy of Culture, Ludzas 24 LV-Riga, Latvia E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: French / Français Lithunia / Lituanie Lina Guobiené Studentu St 39, LIT-2034 Vilnius, Lithuania E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Luxembourg Jean-Baptiste Kremer E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Malta / Malte Raymond Facciol Carlo Diacono Girls’ Junior Lyceum, Zejtun, Malta E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Netherlands / Pays-Bas John Martin Strange Faculteit Educatieve Opleiding, Hogeschool van Utrecht, Postbus 14007, NL-3508 SB Utrecht, Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Norway / Norvège Hilde Beate Lia Telemark University College, Laererskolevegen 20, N-3679 Notodden, Norway E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais


Poland / Pologne Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich Katedra Neofilologii, University of Bialystok, Teacher Training College, ul. Liniarskiego 3, PL15-420 Bialystok, Poland E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Dorota Potocka Katedra Neofilologii, Uniwersytet w Bialymstoku, ul. Liniarskiego 3, PL15-420 Bialystok, Poland E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] (work) Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Romania / Roumanie Janeta Draghicescu Professor, University of Craiova, RO-Craiova – Dolj County, Romania E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: French / Français Russian Federation / Fédération de Russie Irina Iakovleva Professor, Head of Chair of English Lexicology, Head of Chair of English Lexicology, Moscow State Linguistic University, Ostyhenka 38, 119992 Moscow, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Slovak Republic / République slovaque Nancy Tumposky Associate Professor, Pedagogy Faculty Comenius University, Racianska 59, SK-813 34 Bratislava, Slovak Republic E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais Slovenia / Slovénie Nada Sabec Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, Koroska cesta 160, SLO-2000 Maribor, Slovenia E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais


Spain / Espagne Aina Carreras Nadal Conselleria d’Educacio i Cultura, Centre de Professorat i Recursos de Palma, C/ Gregorio Maranon s/n, E-07007 Palma de Mallorca, Spain E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: French / Français Suède / Sweden Bengt Spowe Uppsala universitet, Institutionen fšr lŠrarutbildning / Dep of Teacher Education, Box Senior lecturer EFL, Box 2136, S-750 02 Uppsala, Sweden E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English / Anglais United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni Anne Davidson Lund Project officer, NTO, 20 Bedfordbury, London WC2N 4LB, United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected] Working language / Langue de travail: English


Appendix 13: Biographies Lucyna Aleksandrowicz-Pedich is a graduate of Poznan University, with a PhD from Warsaw University, both degrees in the field of American literature. She is currently employed at Bialystok University and part-time at Warsaw University. She teaches American literature to undergraduate students, and graduate courses in American literature and intercultural competence in teaching English as a foreign language. Her main interest is incorporating intercultural awareness in pre-service and in-service teacher training. Rafn Kjartansson is an English teacher in Akureyri, on the north coast of Iceland. He graduated with an M.A. Hons. in English Language and Literature from the University of Edinburgh in 1967 and completed a diploma in the teaching of English as a Second Language at Leeds University in the following year. He has taught English at junior college in Akureyri since 1968 and at the University of Akureyri since 1987, in the faculties of Teacher Education and Business Management. Rafn is currently enrolled in a distance education programme at the University of Manchester, for the degree of MEd in ELT. Among Rafn's main interests is English as an International Language, especially with regard to attitudes to "foreign accents" and acceptable standards of pronunciation for the use of English in international situations, as well as the inclusion of intercultural studies in English teaching, especially at university level. Ildikó Lázár has been an assistant lecturer and teacher trainer at the Department of English Applied Linguistics of Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, Hungary, since 1994. She teaches English Language Practice and Academic Writing as well as a Methodology Foundations course and an Intercultural Communication elective course at pre-service level. She is also a PhD student in the Language Pedagogy PhD Programme of the same university. Her main research interests are incorporating intercultural communication in language teacher education and the assessment of intercultural communicative competence. Having received support from the ECML, Ildikó and the team conducted an international questionnaire study to see how culture is dealt with in the EFL classroom in the four countries. The results of this survey as well as a follow-up qualitative study to investigate possible reasons for the lack of cultural content in foreign language teaching were in focus during the central workshop in Graz. In the future, Ildikó is planning to conduct another questionnaire study to see what students’ perception of culture is like and how important they believe learning different aspects of culture is.


Liljana Skopinskaja has a degree (PhD) in FLT methodology from St Petersburg Pedagogical University (1988). She is a senior methodologist of the Faculty of Philology at Tallinn Pedagogical University since 1989, and supervises students’ teaching practice in English, German and French at secondary and upper-secondary schools. She is also a teacher trainer and curriculum developer at PRESETT and INSETT levels since 1989, giving lectures on various aspects of FLT methodology. In terms of term paper and graduation thesis supervision she has dealt with such methodology topics as the status of culture teaching in Estonian secondary schools; aspects of raising cultural awareness in the instruction of young learners of English at primary school level; the problems of EL textbook evaluation, selection, adaptation and supplementation, etc. She is a member of EATE (Estonian Association of Teachers of English) which is an affiliate to IATEFL (International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language) since 1992.

Documents

Projet 1.2.3 Rapport d'atelier n° 2/2001 Compétence en