Примењена лингвистика у част Ранку Бугарском - Језик у

Tatjana Paunović: INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE: ...
sity, and ‘ethnorelative’ views in Bennett’s (1986, 1993) sense. The theoretical
framework of the course included models of culture (Hall 1959, 1976, 2004;
Trompenaars, Hampden-Turner 1998; Hofstede 1991/2005), the Developmental
model of intercultural sensitivity (Bennett 1986, 1993), and defining the notion
of ICC (Byram 1997; Byram et al. 2002, 2005), particularly in the context of EFL
teaching. The anthropological perspective, offered, e.g. by Paxman (2007) and
Fox (2004), was not explicitly included in the theoretical framework, but was
suggested through the reading list and homework materials.
Students’ work in the course was organized through group and individual
activities that involved authentic materials (novel or story excerpts, newspaper
and magazine articles, online written materials, comics, cartoons, video and audio
materials from TV shows, films or online sources, live or online interviews
with specific individuals), and were rooted in both ethnographic and critical approaches.
For instance, in line with the ethnographic approach, students were
required to closely observe, record, reflect on, analyse and explain cultural elements,
components and meanings in specific contexts illustrated by the materials,
and to report their observations either in writing, in their journal assignments, or
orally, in class discussions. But in addition to this sort of reflection, and in line
with the approach of critical pedagogy, they were encouraged to critically analyze
these examples within the given communicative and social context. Special
attention was paid to developing students’ awareness about the responsibility of
socializations agents, and, particularly, language teachers as agents of socialization
(Canagarajah 2005: 944).
Assessment was, naturally, part of the course. Students’ journal entries
were handed in regularly during the course, and assessed as individual projects.
At the end of the course, students wrote individual essays (2,500 words) on the
topic of their choice, which were assessed by the instructors. The final exam consisted
in students’ oral presentations of their essays, followed by a group discussion,
which was also assessed. However, it should be pointed out that students’
final grades did not result from the assessment of their intercultural competence,
but, rather, the language, organization and clarity of their written reports, based
on general academic writing assessment standards, and their overall engagement
in coursework and the final exam. The students did take a modified GENE (Generalized
ethnocentrism scale) test before and after the course, the results of which
showed some change of their overall stance towards ethnorelativism (reported
in Lazarević 2009); however, it was not an assessment tool, but rather a selfreflection
tool for students’ use. Much as Colvin-Burque and colleagues (2007:
231), we felt that it was important to help the students develop the analytical and
critical tools for observation and self-reflection, essential for their ICC, but that it
238