Best Practice Guide
Before running a course of professional communication in an online context with intercultural teams, you should follow the steps below:
1. Needs analysis
Participation in the EnComTOP course, or any other online collaborative project, may either be recommended or mandatory for students in order to
promote real-life & professional communication in English
facilitate collaboration with students from other countries and cultures
boost students’ confidence in the above, and
increase their motivation.
Thus, participants can be recruited either on a voluntary basis, or directly (based on a pre-course test or self-enrolment).
To ensure that communication in the multinational teams flows smoothly, either a pre-course level test or the assessment of recent course work is recommended. The course is not recommended for students below B2 level.
Students wishing to join the course should read the pre-course information leaflet (or course description).
2. Agreeing on a timetable
One of the most frequent problems of working in international teams is to agree on a common timetable as each institution has its own academic schedules including vacation times and public holidays. For instance, in our pilot course the academic year begins at different times in each of the three institutions involved.
Firstly, look for weeks which are suitable for team members in all participating institutions - this will be the time for running the course and for getting the students to work together on their project tasks. Then, distribute the time (weeks) according to the stages of the project. Remember to bear in mind different public holidays so that they have time enough to carry out the tasks with no “intercultural interference”.
Secondly, distribute the working weeks among the teachers. Each teacher should be responsible for a set number of weeks. During these weeks, they will answer the students’ questions and will be the communications manager for the teachers. It is advisable to provide students with a timetable containing this information so that they can get in contact with the teacher ’on duty’ without bombarding the rest of the teachers with their queries. This helps teachers save time and avoids any unnecessary work for the whole community of teachers.
3. Creating multinational groups
For the creation of working groups, during the pilot courses the teachers worked with a spreadsheet in which the following information on the students was listed:
Institution (University of…)
Surname, Name
University discipline (e.g., mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, industrial engineering, architecture, etc.) and current year
E-mail address
Certificate in English language?
Level of English language (B1 to C1/C2)
The information was collected via Google forms and shared in spreadsheet form. Team members received each other’s email addresses to be able to get in touch.
After collecting this information, two main issues should be considered. Firstly, if possible, each group should consist of a member from each institution. If this is not possible, groups with members of the same nationality should be avoided. This obliges team members to use English as a lingua franca and deal with cross-cultural issues, since one of the goals of these types of projects is to bring students together to work and negotiate in intercultural contexts.
Secondly, think of a) creating multidisciplinary work groups, in other words, including in the same group people studying for different degrees, or b) creating groups with students who are taking the same degrees.
In the EntreSTEAM project, the two approaches have been tried and both presented advantages and disadvantages. In the case of a multidisciplinary group, the resulting outcome of the project work is likely to be based on an interdisciplinary approach.
The students can be provided with a spreadsheet containing information, such as degree disciplines, on the other members of the group so that they can get in contact beforehand to break the ice.
4. Teamwork
Although the majority of students tend to show, a priori, a willingness to work in a team, one must be aware of the difficulties that can arise when people cooperate. Team members have to be flexible, listen to others, and know how to share their ideas with others without the rest of the group feeling threatened. Apart from these basic requirements, the following points should be taken into consideration:
Technical difficulties can really pose a major obstacle for EnComTOP.
It can be very hard even for three people to find a common meeting time.
Team members should not hesitate to mention when something is not clear.
Students must be quick to report any constraints on participation so that uncertainty is minimized.
The teams must make time to hash out a set of rules which will facilitate their cooperation and will work for everyone in the team (see “Helpful rules” below).
Helpful rules:
The student taking the minutes shares their screen with the others so that everyone can see in writing what decisions are being made (helps those with weaker language skills).
The team members agree how often they need to check for messages in their group chat, so that people do not have to wait too long for an answer.
The team establishes punctuality rules for meetings.
Team members preview the goals and activities for the next phase before the meeting in the present phase so that they are clear about what lies ahead.
Team members let the group know immediately if they do not understand.
Team members inform the others honestly and promptly if they do not have time for their work or if they need to reschedule a meeting.
Meeting times are always specified in CET.
If it is hard to negotiate understanding, common languages other than English can be used to facilitate the teamwork.
All team members must check that they have access to essential tools (e.g., the Team document).
5. Giving instructions to students & leading students to autonomy
Students can be instructed to adopt different roles in the team, for example:
The Communications Manager, who is responsible for making requests of the teachers, for example, or letting the teachers know when teams are experiencing problems, reporting on (a lack of) progress and handling other communications between the team and the teachers.
The Product Manager, who is in charge of product development and has the last word on all product decisions.
The Time Manager, who is responsible for scheduling meetings and ensuring that the appropriate work is completed according to the course timetable.
The Team Manager, who makes sure that all team members’ voices are heard, allocates speaking turns during meetings and takes care of the social aspects of the team’s activities.
These roles can be fixed, that is, the student plays that role from the beginning to the end of the project. Alternatively, they can rotate so that students have the chance to play different roles - this helps them learn the specific skills attached to each particular role.
6. Online platforms and applications
At the very beginning of this project, different online platforms and applications were considered for use during the project:
Moodle
Microsoft Teams
Google Meet
Zoom
Whatsapp
Telegram
Padlet
They were assessed in terms of usefulness.
The EntreSTEAM team agreed that for the pilot courses Moodle should be used as the common educational platform as the three institutions (teachers and students) were familiar with it. The drawback of using this platform is that a license covering the different institutions is required.
Course platform
Moodle allows teachers to organise the information, resources and activities in sections thereby making the information look clear, neat, organised and structured. It also enables teachers to upload a wide variety of files and resources ranging from tests to forums. The name of each section can correspond to the name of the stage of the project and can include the course week in which it is carried out.
Video Conference applications
After the Covid pandemic and the switch to online teaching and working, there was a realisation that video conferencing offered a number of advantages for communication. Not only can we listen to speakers, but we can also see them, which makes the communication more authentic. These applications also incorporate a chatbox that allows us to send messages during the conversation. Some of the most popular applications include:
Microsoft Teams, which offers the possibility of uploading files to be available once the conference is over
Google Meet
Zoom
Instant messaging applications:
Whatsapp
Telegram
7. Bibliographical resources
This section includes useful bibliography related to issues for the development of the course like:
Autonomous learning
Assessment: (formative: feedback from participants, peer-feedback, summative)
Needs analysis
Teamwork
Working in transnational teams
Online communication - Netiquette
Online teaching
7.1. Autonomous learning
Jimenez Raya, M. and Vieira, F. 2020. Autonomy in Language Education. Theory, Research and Practice. London: Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Autonomy-in-Language-Education-Theory-Research-and-Practice/Raya-Vieira/p/book/9780367539955
Kim, S. H. 2014. Developing autonomous learning for oral proficiency using digital storytelling. Language Learning & Technology 18(2), 20–35. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/e8acd020-a993-485f-b6cd-ad175da5579e/content
Macaskill, A. and Denovan, A. 2011. Developing autonomous learning in first year university students using perspectives from positive psychology. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.566325
Pejuan, A. and Antonijuan, J. 2019. Independent learning as class preparation to foster student-centred learning in first-year engineering students. Research in Compulsory Education, 24 (4). https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2019.1584447.
7.2. Assessment: (formative: feedback from participants, peer-feedback, summative)
Prins, Frans J. et al. 2010. Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: a case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (4): 417-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099219. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602930500099219
Topping, Keith J. 2009. Peer Assessment. Theory and Practice, 48 (1): 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569
Vickerman, P. 2009. Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: an attempt to deepen learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34 (2): 221-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801955986
7.3. Needs analysis
Alsamadani, H. A. 2017. Needs Analysis in ESP Context: Saudi Engineering Students as a Case Study. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8 (6): 58-68. http://journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/alls/article/view/4006
Flowerdew, L. 2012. Needs Analysis and Curriculum Development in ESP. In Paltridge, Brian & Sue Starfield (eds.) The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes.Wiley Online Library, 325-346. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118339855.ch17
Huhta, M., Vogt, K., Johnson, E. and Tulkk, H. 2013. Needs Analysis for Language Course Design. A Holistic Approach to ESP. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.routledge.com/Introducing-Needs-Analysis-and-English-for-Specific-Purposes/Brown/p/book/9781138803817?source=igodigital
7.4. Teamwork
Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H. G. 2001. Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projets: A Theoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence. Organization Science, 12 (4): 435-449. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.435.10635
Isohätälä, J. (2020). The interplay of cognitive and socio-emotional processes in social interaction: Process-oriented analyses of collaborative learning. University of Oulu.
Salas, E. et al. 2014. Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide. Human Resource Management, 54 (4): 599-622. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21628
Salas, E., Sims, D. E. and Burke, C. S. 2005. Is there a “Big Five” in Teamwork? Small Group Research, 36 (5): 555-599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405277134
Additional readings:
“What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team”. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html
“The five keys to a successful Google team”. https://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/five-keys-to-a-successful-google-team/
“Teamwork: how to be an activator, not a blocker”. https://www.ccl.org/articles/leading-effectively-articles/are-you-a-teamwork-blocker-or-an-activator/
“What is Fist to Five?”. https://www.hugo.team/blog/fist-to-five-voting
7.5. Working in transnational teams
Jimenez, A., Boehe, D. M., Taras, V. and Caprar, D. V. 2017. Working Across Boundaries: Current and Future Perspectives on Global Virtual Teams. Journal of International Management, 23 (4): 341-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2017.05.001
Keevers, L. et al. 2014. ‘I like the people I work with. Maybe I’ll get to meet them in person one day’: teaching and learning practice development with transnational teaching teams. Journal of Education and Teaching, 40 (3): 232-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.903024
Keevers, L. M., Price, O., Leask, B., Dawood Sultan, F. K., Lim, J. S., & Loh, V. 2019. Practices to improve collaboration by reconfiguring boundaries in transnational education. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 16(2): 11. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.16.2.4
Lewis, R. D. (2019). The cultural imperative: Global trends in the 21st century. Training, Language and Culture, 3(3), 8-20.
Yu Liu, Boshuai Ye, Jing Liu, Chao Dong. 2021. Study on Innovation Cultivation Model and Practice for Engineering Talents in Transnational Higher Education. Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Transformations and Innovations in Business and Education (ICTIBE 2021) https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.210809.030
Additional readings:
The Lewis Model - Dimensions of behaviour. https://www.crossculture.com/the-lewis-model-dimensions-of-behaviour/
7.6. Online communication - Netiquette
Clouder, D. L., Goodman, S., Bluteau, P., Jackson, A., Davies, B. and Merriman, L. 2010. An investigation of “agreement” in the context of interprofessional discussion online: A “netiquette” of interprofessional learning? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25 (2): 112-118. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2010.500445
Shea, V. 1994. Core rules of Netiquette. EDUCOM Review, 29 (5): 58-62. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ489822
Spinks, N., Wells, B. and Meche, M. 1999. Netiquette: a behavioral guide to electronic business communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4 (3),: 145-155. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563289910288465
7.7. Online teaching
Russell, V., and Murphy-Judy, K. (2020). Teaching language online: A guide to designing, developing, and delivering online, blended, and flipped language courses. London: Routledge.