University of Rome
III - Degree in Languages & International
Communication - Convener: Patrick Boylan - Academic
year 2008-09
- III/2
COURSE: English
III
for English minors , curriculum OCI
and
LL
TASK
N° _1_
Due date: 06/05/09 Group
Leader: __________________________ <Use
BLOCK
LETTERS
Group:
A B C
D E F
G H I
J <Circle
a letter
Evaluation Sheet
(The criteria
to use in judging papers appears below)
WRITE STUDENTS' NAMES ON LINE, THEN CIRCLE POINTS FOR EACH CATEGORY, GIVE TOTAL.
1.
_____________________________ Form = 0 1 Content
= 0 1 0 1 0
1 2 Total =
__
Comment:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
2.
_____________________________ Form = 0 1 Content
= 0 1 0 1 0
1 2 Total =
__
Comment:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
3.
_____________________________ Form = 0 1 Content
= 0 1 0 1 0
1 2 Total =
__
Comment:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
4.
_____________________________ Form = 0 1 Content
= 0 1 0 1 0
1 2 Total =
__
Comment:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
5.
_____________________________ Form = 0 1 Content
= 0 1 0 1 0
1 2 Total =
__
Comment:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
6.
_____________________________ Form
= 0 1 Content =
0 1 0 1 0
1 2 Total =
__
Comment:
_______________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Group Leader's signature________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS
NOTE: WHEN YOU RETURN THE
EVALUATION SHEET TO THE TEACHER,
DO NOT INCLUDE THESE
INSTRUCTIONS.
The purpose of
this experiment is:
(1.) to help you gain familiarity with the
Negotiator Pro software,
(2.) to help you see the act of
negotiation as a meshing of (initially) non-convergent wills by
defining the volitional character of a negotiation partner and your
own volitional character as well,
(3.) to help you distance
yourself from your Italian culture by seeing people you consider
“perfectly normal*”
(the members of your family, a boyfriend or a girlfriend, a
neighbor...) as, in reality, problematic – the exercise makes
you see their values in a new light.
*Some
students say that they have never
considered the members of their family or their
girl/boyfiend
as perfectly normal, but this is another question.
As
we have stated many times, the first step toward understanding a
diverse culture is... understanding better your own
culture.
“Intercultural
competence is to a large extent the ability to cope with one's own
cultural background in interaction with others” -- Jürgen
Beneke, “Intercultural Competence,” in U.Bliesener,
Training the trainers.
Köln: Carl Duisberg , 2000.
“γνῶθι
σεαυτόν” (Know
theyself!) --
Inscription on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi and often attributed to
Socrates.
Given
the above, mark the papers of the students in your group using the
following criteria.
MEMORANDUM TO MYSELF FOR WHEN I HAVE TO NEGOTIATE WITH ...
FORM:
Give the
student:
0 = if the
paper does not give the student's name, course, date, assignment etc.
at the top and/or
if
the paper has tiny margins and/or if the paper is written in
difficult-to-read handwriting and/or
if
the paper has lots of spelling, punctuation and/or grammar
mistakes.
1 = if none of
the above is true. (Even if only one element is true, the student
gets zero).
CONTENT:
From
what I know of this student, her/his description of her/himself*:
–
0 = does not
correspond to how I see her/him
(she/he has an unrealistic idea of her/himself);
1
= is plausible
(verosimile)
or at least convincing.
*N.B: If the Npro software gives an
unrealistic picture of the student, but the student criticizes the
software for doing so in the final part of the paper (the “Report”
on the usefulness of the software), then take into consideration both
the description AND the criticism (the latter prevails).
The
student's descriptions of her/himself and her/his adversary are
–
0 = generic with
just a few indications of specific characteristics and little
specific terminology;
1
= highly
detailed and terminologically precise
(the
descriptions seem written by a negotiation consultant).
You
found the student's report
on
the usefulness of the software:
– 0 =
poorly argued
(generalizations
or affirmations without examples and other proof);
1
= satisfactorily
argued;
2
= extremely
well argued (lots
of affirmations and every one is well documented)
.