User and Functional Testing

2010

Handbook of Research on Innovative Pedagogies and Technologies for Online Learning in Higher Education, 2000

Telecollaborating and communicating in online contexts using English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) requires students to develop multiple literacies in addition to foreign language skills and intercultural communicative competence. This chapter looks at the intersection of technology and teaching ELF, examining mutual contributions of technologies, more specifically Web 2.0, and ELF to each other, and the challenges in designing and implementing collaboration projects across cultures. Moreover, it looks at how the development of digital competencies in ELF (DELF) can be enhanced through the implementation of Web 2.0 mediated intercultural dialogues. The detail of the research design including internet tools used, participants and tasks are also discussed. Data analysis points to a positive attitude towards telecollaboration, also providing confirmation of some of the problems identified in theoretical framework, such as different levels of personal engagement.

2005

THIS IS MY LAST ISSUE AS FORUM EDITOR before Amy Verdun, my colleague from the EUSA executive board, takes on this task. I take this opportunity to thank all the contributors to the ten Forums that I coordinated for the time they took out of their busy schedules to write original articles for EUSA. When the Forum was dedicated to comments on a specific event such as the elections to the European parliament, referendum results, or the signing of a new treaty, authors have tight deadlines.

Final report for the EDL …, 2010

Proceedings of the Workshop on Language Technology for Digital Historical Archives - with a Special Focus on Central-, (South-)Eastern Europe, Middle East and North Africa, 2019

In the second year of the EU-MADE4ll project, five project partners (Aarhus University, University of Florence, University of Leeds, University of Messina and University of Rome, Tor Vergata) designed, planned and delivered a joint study programme for five different degree courses. Firstly, the basic concepts of multimodality, digital literacy and intercultural communication were introduced and taught in the five university contexts. This was followed by a series of workshops and practical exercises and tutorials were delivered to focus on five digital text types. Students were then asked to produce one of the five digital texts, plus a paper that helped them to motivate their selection for their final assignment. Students were paired with other students on the EU-MADE4LL platform to facilitate anonymous peer-assessment. Based on their results, the best achieving students had the opportunity to further practice their intercultural and digital skills in an international context. We invite you to explore the activities, including the design of our overall syllabus, workshop practice, tasks, assignments and readings which make up the joint syllabus. Feedback, questions and criticism are very welcome. We designed the syllabus in order to make it completely replicable and flexible, so that it may fit different needs, fields of studies, students and contexts.

In this article, we will emphasize what kind of difficulties the European Union has encountered in the international political and economic struggle and that these difficulties can be solved in the context of the axis of common sense, in accordance with the rules of universal law, and that they are of great importance in terms of the values of the European Union. We will look at the solutions together. In this context, we call on all stakeholders and our international partners to unite around our universal values. Together, we will evaluate the reshaped economic agreements after Brexit and how beneficial the union can be achieved. The refugee problem transforms our security policies and imposes important responsibilities on the European Union countries.

Póster

From a cultural perspective, the city of Milan in Italy has a lot of activities and places to offer. Milan was not only designated by the Unesco as creative city for literature, but also chosen for hosting the European Culture Forum (ECF) from 7 to 8 December 2017. It was the first time that it was held outside of Brussels. The neighbourhood in which the event took place was quite fitting: opposite of the venue was an old factory building repurposed for creative industries with offices and spaces for cultural activities and adjacent to the Museo delle Culture.

Communication with participants Participants were pleased with the logistical and other support provided. Recommendation 9: As noted above, future exercises should provide more information by way of background, using varied methods including video and audio as well as text. The process itself involved a large amount of text, in recommendation drafts and other contributions, that needed to be processed and considered between sessions. This processing, including the grouping and clustering of similar ideas, and cross-referencing, often took place late at night, without the involvement of participants. This was a reasonable response to the shortage of time and the need to manage a very broad set of topics. However, while the clustering process was explained in the Session, it was less transparent than it could have been, and there were occasions where evaluators saw ideas that had been expressed in one context misunderstood at the time of clustering. The multilingual nature of content made this more difficult still, as automated translations were often the only reference point available. Recommendation 10: In future exercises, human translation and the group facilitators should be used to clarify the meaning of contributions. When possible, the process of grouping, clustering, and editing should be conducted in public. Where this is not possible the way in which clustering takes place, and its detailed results, should be made available to participants. Sharing materials with participants The issue of not being able to equip participants with the content they were working on was raised by some participants and facilitators. Participants received a range of information before the meetings, mostly practical or preparatory material relating to the process. However, this preparatory material did not cover the European Union, its current powers, institutions, role and responsibilities, and the principal policies currently in force or under development. Recommendation 11: Sharing materials so that participants can reflect on the content between sessions is a consideration to be made. Depending on the scale of the topics to be considered, and the time limitation, a better introduction to the institutional mandates could prevent the discussions from being repetitive in some policy areas, and sometimes not leading to constructive recommendations (as well as reducing the burden on expert witnesses). A more balanced and digestible package of information split into EU competencies, knowledge, suggested direction for deliberation, and a wider diversity of views, combined with more time to learn the information provided, may help the intake of complex knowledge. It may also equip certain citizens to express themselves more freely, as well as more clearly laying the ground for the direction of deliberations Use of the recommendations The recommendations from the Citizen Panels were taken into the Conference plenary. All the recommendations from the citizens were used in some form in the final proposals. The finalisation procedures that led to those decisions, while defined for all, were not always strictly 9 followed in each working group (where the bulk of the drafting was done). This made it more difficult for the ambassadors to prepare. Recommendation 12: In future exercises, the pathway and process from recommendations to proposals should be written down more in advance and be the same for each working group, rather than depending on the chair. The balancing of the different institutional pillars and the citizens was clearly explained, but citizens seemed not always to be clear that they were only one element of the plenary. On occasion, this led to frustration, which could be avoided if the process is more clearly understood at the start. It is also important to tailor messaging to citizen participants (and more generally) to ensure it reflects the reality of decision-making power, which in this case lay with the plenary, with each pillar having a right to object. Recommendation 13: Citizens were accompanied and coached in the plenary, but for future processes that use Parliamentary premises and procedure, support and coaching should be further developed, both for citizen participants and institutional participants. With further coaching and better mutual understanding of roles and processes that are different from parliamentary sessions, discrepancies in expectations could be avoided in future processes. While there was a conscious effort over the plenary process to move away from parliamentary proceedings, the Plenary elements of the Conference were complex and difficult to parse for citizens. In part, this was because of their political nature, and the fact that institutional actors often had strong preferences and were able to argue their cases expertly and eloquently. Recommendation 14: For future exercises, such plenary processes could designed as much as possible with different codes than the parliamentary ones. Citizens should either be more deeply embedded in a plenary process (which would need additional training and support, and design changes), or the plenary should focus on the public consideration of citizen recommendations by institutional and civil society actors. The Conference plenary tried for a midway position, and this was the cause of some frustrations expressed by citizens. At times the Plenary Conference discussions turned extremely technical. For example, the feasibility of recommendations within the framework of the treaties, or what is possible within the EU's mandate were often discussed. Such technical discussions alienated the ambassadors, causing their involvement to waver at times. Despite this, they were grateful to be hearing from the other institutions how their recommendations could be taken on and how they could be implemented. Recommendation 15: For future processes the study recommends increasing the transparency of the drafting process to avoid confusion on whether citizens, who are supposed to be at the heart of the process, are granted their rightful place in the drafting process. The complexity behind such an elaborate inter-component engagement involving representative with different levels of procedural expertise needs to be carefully reflected in design. This report does not consider the ultimate impact of the proposals, which is not yet known. Recommendation 16: For future exercises, it will be important that the decision-making around the final proposals is transparent, and that the loop is closed with at least a detailed joint communication, and preferably a review event, with all citizens. This event is already planned in the follow-up of the Conference, involving all the 800 citizens, but the expertise of participants should also be used in the design of future models for similar events. Moreover, especially because this Conference concerned 8 Conference on the Future of Europe-Report on the Final outcome (2022) 9 European Council (2017). The Rome Declaration. Declaration of the leaders of 27 member states and of the European Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission 10 European Commission (2017). White paper on the future of Europe. Reflections and scenarios for the EU27 by 2025.