PROPOSAL GUIDELINES IN DETAIL
1. TITLE OF PRESENTATION: What Could Constructive Alignment Mean when Teaching Intercultural Issues? 2. A 250 word abstract of the presentation: This presentation combines intercultural and pedagogical theories examining both the choices made in teaching or training sessions and the reactions and learning outcomes that participants have of them. The relationship between the goal, content, methods and assessment are discussed with the concept of contructive alignment. How much e.g. methods and assessment used lean on lecturers’ own cultural/academic backgroud? How conscious lecturers and students are about the assumptions that are underpinnig the choices made regarding teaching? What kind of assuptions of learning there are? Can teaching be interculturally sensitive? And if so, how? The examples used are from the research material gathered in Finnish and Bolivian academic context including ethnic, national and gender diversity in participating groups. The relevance of the results is also reflected in corporate training context. 3. PRESENTER(S) INFORMATION: 1. Eila Isotalus 2. University of Helsinki 3. eila.isotalus@helsinki.fi 4. www.helsinki.fi/hum/kvv 5. +358-40-7701918 6. Rantakartanontie 1 D 30, 00910 Helsinki 7. SIETAR Deutchland membership 8. Previous SIETAR presentation: Powerful 4. SESSION LENGTH AND FORMAT: D. Formal Paper/Research Presentation: 50 minutes. This more formal, academic format consists of the presenter describing the results of a research project and discussing the study. Attendees can expect a minimum 10 minute question and answer period during this session. Presenters are encouraged to provide copies of their paper. 5. A 150 WORD BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE ABOUT THE/EACH PRESENTER
Enough – No Need for Adaptation? in Berlin 2004
Eila Isotalus is coordinating the Master Programme in Intercultural Encounters at the University of Helsinki from the year 2001. She has her Masters’ degree from the University of Jyväskylä, Interdisciplinary Master Programme in Intercultural Communication and Intercultural Relations. Her thesis was titled: "Critical Success Factors of Finnish-Mexican Interpersonal Communication in Business Context“. Now she continues towards PhD at the Univeristy of Helsinki for Latin American Studies, taking the topics of her Master Thesis further and combining aspects of multicultural groups, diversity management and intercultural learning and training. Beside her work at the University, she has been working also as a trainer and consultant for various organizations.
6. TARGET AUDIENCE: o All Areas of professional interest: (Check All That Apply) o Education o Higher education o Grammar or secondary education o Training o Business/corporate o Non-profit/NGO o Domestic diversity o Global diversity o Communication/dialogue 7. EQUIPMENT & AUDIO VISUAL REQUIREMENTS Please specify what equipment you will need for your presentation. The following will be provided if requested with the proposal: o Flip chart o TV/VCR (possibly) o LCD projector(Please contact us if you need an LCD projector and cannot bring one.) o Screen o Other (please, let us know NOW what you have in mind and we will tell you if it is possible) I would like to use Power Point and be able to bring only the memory stick; no computer either… Is that possible? 8. ROOM SIZE & SET-UP Please specify the following: Number of participants for your session: o Desired number of participants: about 20-30 Your preferred room set-up: o Classroom Style o Boardroom Style, if the number of the participants allows o Maximum number of participants –
9. SESSION DESCRIPTION Content
In the congresses of SIETAR, I have rarely participated session examining intercultural training and teaching from the point of view of pedagogical theories. However, I think, this would be really important point to make and that is the main idea of my presentation. I base this presentation on my field work in Bolivia (part at the university with indigenous students and part in indigenous community) and my work (is also reported as field work) at the University of Helsinki as a coordinator of the Master Programme in Intercultural Encounters and as a trainer and consultant in other contexts. As a frame of reference I have several intercultural theories and theories mainly on adult pedagogy. When training intercultural issues, one touches concepts like intercultural competence, intercultural effectiveness, intercultural sensitivity, adaptation etc. However, how much these concepts are present in practice during the teaching or training session? From the theories of intercultural competence we know that the knowledge is not the only element one needs but also the skills and motivation; if we examine the concept of intercultural sensitivity, it brings more elements one should note, namely, emotions and attitudes. Intercultural effectiveness, in turn, adds e.g. interaction and participation with the local community. In other words, when supporting to construct intercultural competence of a person, there are many aspects one should take into consideration. One could say that it is impossible, because there is always so little time. One could also argue: do we use all the capacity that the session gives? In this point, I will introduce the term constructive alignment (John Biggs, 1996), which means shortly that one chooses all the elements of teaching: content, methods and assessment (to be added: logic, place etc.) to support the goal decided. There is deep approach to learning: it is not only to know something but also to understand, to be able to apply, also maybe to feel, express and be part of. If we know that the knowledge is only one part of the desired goal, training should then handle consciously also other topics than knowledge. There are researches that show the differences between the expected and desired training format e.g. between French and German managers. The critical question is how we use this knowledge. Is it that we are then able to built trainings that reflect best the participant expectations? However, as the idea of constructive alignment guide, one has to make the choices in the base of the goals, not in the base of participants’ expectations (even though we might have to give strong arguments for the participants explicitly). If we train people to be able to work effectively in surroundings that are not as they are used to (as is often the case in intercultural settings), isn’t that a really disservice for them and misuse of the opportunity if the training will not give them opportunities to experience such “alien” settings in a safe and guided environment? Hence, interesting questions arise about the role of the teacher/trainer: How much e.g. methods and assessment used lean on his/hers own cultural/academic background? How conscious lecturers and students are about the assumptions that are underpinning the choices made regarding teaching? What kind of assumptions of learning there are? To take academic context as an example. At least Finnish academic culture (in the Faculty of Arts, I might add) is structured in a very individualistic way: student has a lot of liberty to choose of the courses and times him/herself; assignments are mainly personal essays and exams; assessment are given personally etc. In the Master Programme in Intercultural Encounters I have consciously built course design to include also collective elements. My first argument is about the nature of knowledge. On the base of many intercultural theories, one can claim that knowledge is socially and culturally constructed; the pedagogical idea of social constructivism gives the very same argument. Hence, also the learning at the university could and should allow socially constructed knowledge. Social construction process aims to conceptual change of the participants that is well supporting the aim of building intercultural competence (note the difference with the idea of learning being facilitating to understand as constructivism says; or sharing the knowledge as behaviourism puts it; etc. All of these might be needed, but to reach the skills, for instance, they are just not enough). My second argument bases on the goal of the degree: to educate professionals in intercultural field. They need practical and emotional experiences during their studies about how it is to work in a multicultural/diverse group – or as in our case it is mainly interdisciplinary group. Bringing this process explicitly into the discussion and include it as a part of the assessment of the course, gives students opportunities to reflect and experience many levels of intercultural dynamics. Other examples: o o o o Logic of the training: comparison of Andean logic vs. Western logic (Estermann, 1998) Methods of the training: written/oral (“escritura de la ciudad”) Communication style used in training: neutral/affective Etc.
This leads us also to ask especially when teaching diverse groups, if teaching can be interculturally sensitive. Intercultural sensitivity could be defined e.g. as “the ability to construe cultural difference in nonevaluative, accurate, complex and useful ways” (Bennett, 1996). How could teaching be nonevaluative, for instance? Maybe one could examine it from the other viewpoint: How could teaching be evaluating in diverse ways? Appreciating and including diverse forms of completion? What kind of assessment criteria should then be? Examples from the research material and reflections. The discussion. Methodology
Along the theoretical context that I bring, I’ll do some small participative exercises to illustrate my point, where the reactions and interpretations of the participants are asked and reflected in the light of the theoretical considerations. As well I will use a lot of comments – both form the students and the teachers from the interviews and feedback forms as well as experiences from ethnographic field work. I want to leave about 10-15 minutes time from the end to the general discussion; however, the small exercises will give room for comments and reflections during whole presentation. Relationship of this paper to the theme of the congress: Your Culture, My Culture, Our Opportunity.
I’ll bring forth several quite different aspects on learning: from both Finnish and Bolivian academic context but also from indigenous point of view and also reflect these in Finnish corporate context. In my “laboratory”, the Master Programme in Intercultural Encounters at the University of Helsinki, I have tried to combine sometimes to some extend even conflicting views. With the feedback of our students I will also illustrate how this is reflected in learning outcomes. I see there our challenge but also our opportunity. Literature: o Biggs, John. 1996. Enhancing Teaching through Constructive Alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347-504. o Estermann, Josef. 1998. Filosofia Andina. Estudio intercultural de la sabiduría autóctona andina. Abya-Yala Editing. Quito.
10. PRESENTER(S) BIOGRAPHY OR CURRICULUM VITAE
Eila Johanna Isotalus Born 8th of February 1972 Single A. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Employment record
Rantakartanontie 1 D 30 00910 Helsinki tel. +358-40 - 770 1918 eila.isotalus@helsinki.fi
17.4.2001Coordinator of Master Programme in Intercultural Encounters Employer: University of Helsinki, Faculty of Arts (www.helsinki.fi/hum/kvv) Researcher/Teacher exchange: Cochabamba, Bolivia, May-June 2004 Since autumn 1997Freelancer trainer/consultant/teacher Employer: Through Consulting Companies for companies; independently for different Schools in Finland like Universities, Vocational Schools and Folk High Schools. 1.4-30.9.1999 Member of Marketing Team, Nokia México Employer: Nokia México (Puebla, Mexico) 15.8.94-31.5.96 Teacher responsible for International Line Employer: The Christian Folk High School of Jämsä, Finland B. EDUCATION 2003 Advance studies towards PhD, University of Helsinki
Research topic: Taking the topics of my Master Thesis further and combining aspects of multicultural groups, diversity management and intercultural learning and training. Minor studies: University pedagogic and pedagogic of professional learning (Helia) FM, Interdisciplinary Masters’ Programme in Intercultural Communication and Intercultural Relations Institute: University of Jyväskylä, Finland Major: Speech Communication specializing on Intercultural Communication and Intercultural Relations Thesis: "Critical Success Factors of Finnish-Mexican Interpersonal Communication in Business Context" with excellent notes Miners: Educational Science, Intercultural Studies, Marketing, Multimedia, Spanish 29.11.2002 C. CONGRESS PRESENTATIONS 1. NIC Kristiansand, November 2004: Business in Multicultural World: Power and the Need of Adaptation. 2. SIETAR Berlin 31.3 – 3.4.2004: Powerful Enough – No Need for Adaptation? 3. Seminar 10-11.4.2003 on Learning by researching, at the University of Helsinki: Narratives as a part of the process of learning by researching (originally in Finnish). 4. 7th Nordic Symposium on Intercultural Communication (NIC) in Turku 24-26.11.2000: Critical Success Factors in Finnish-Mexican Business Communication C. LANGUAGE SKILLS Finnish Mother tongue Spanish & English excellent oral and fluent written skills German & Swedish good oral and written skills French basic oral and written skills Norwegian & Swiss German comprehension skills