EXPLICS

2009

Lecturers
Students

Bioscience
Business & Communication
Sustainability

Autonomous learning
Classroom Context

Italian

Italian

B1
B2
C1
C2

Activity/task
Audio
Picture/Graphics
Reference resources (online Dictionaries/ grammar guides/phrasebooks)
Simulation
Video

Vocabulary
Grammar
Pragmatics

Listening
Speaking
Critical Thinking
Writing
Reading
Mediation

The aim of the EXPLICS project is to improve language competence of students by preparing models of best-practice in how to exploit Internet case study and simulation templates and by familiarising language teachers with these models. This is achieved by bringing together the different competence areas of the project partners. These specialisations include: task-oriented and problem-based learning and teaching; use of global simulations; use of case studies in language teaching; development of language level descriptors and methods of language testing, use of ICT for corpus analysis and concordance and the use of ICT for language testing. We will then develop interrelated activities for subject-specific language teaching.
The project will explore different means of using ICT to exploit Internet case study and simulation templates for language teaching and learning. As far as the Italian language is concerned, the teaching material is based on the use of subject-specific case studies and simulation projects at CEFR levels B and C, in relation to language teaching for students of agricultural & natural sciences and business & economics at higher education institutions.
The materials are organised in professional development modules and a handbook for language teachers and teacher trainers.
The EXPLICS project aims to positively impact on language training and because of this on the motivation of students to continue to learn foreign languages after completion of their studies in lifelong learning. It contributes to a higher language competence of students, particularly of students of agricultural & natural sciences and of business & economics.

Validation with 1 German student of B1.3 level of Italian.
He enjoyed the assignment because he was able to deal with a situation that he knew personally and often considered critically. The writing activity was fun, but 200 words was too few. It was useful for learning. The contents were useful and interesting as they are discussed problems even now. The materials lacked of a glossary and not all the opinions were reported on the different themes. The materials were a bit scarce and not up to date. He had vocabulary difficulties with the written texts and with the videos. On a linguistic level, he learned some specific words of the social science field, but he blamed the lack of word cards which could explain specific Italian culture aspects, This lack also drew to misunderstand the meaning of specific words. He noticed that one speaker had a mispronunciation defect, which was challenging for him.
As far as the task he did online is concerned, he expressed, not being elicited, his preference for activities in presence, in real life, in which one can directly interview residents, owners, local traders. According to him, the presented situations are very controlled, for this reason they sound unreal. He also stressed the importance of keeping the material update. Specific terminology learned: social, citizen, socio-environmental. As for the difficulty, he thought the level was correct. The authenticity of the selected materials is a plus to motivation. Not all the exercises proposed were particularly interesting, like writing a flyer.

All the Explics tasks can be use exactly as they are presented in the internet site, but they can be also exploited in real life, by integrating a small questionnaire (developed in the class-room), then filling it out with people from different places according to the project at issue and evaluating the results in the class-room.
Newer teaching resources are more motivating because they are more up to date, younger. If materials are outdated one may think that the problem at issue, is now solved, whereas it would be better to think that one can really intervene and make something to solve the problem (and not that it is just an exercise).