|
Question 1
As was explained before, the first idea occurred to the writer because of the problems the students had, especially during the first term. One of the main points was that most of the students felt at a loss and did not know what to do and how to meet the expectations of the professors. A lot of decision-making even in the organisational part of the studies was left to the students and some found that too challenging. For instance, some subjects were offered in parallel, which meant that one had to choose which theme is more interesting for him/her or more important to study. For some of the students this was not understandable because they were always given a pre determined list of which subjects to take and for how long.
It was possible to negotiate the time of some of the lectures, and if one could negotiate in time, one could actually change the schedule of next term or the next seminar. Apart from being unaccustomed to such a system, some of the students believed that they were discriminated against because they did not know beforehand that such negotiations were possible at all.
Another area of concern was the evaluation system. Taking an exam is not the only way of determining the pass or fail of the participants. In some of the subjects it was enough to take part actively in the class, be it the discussions or any other activities. This was usually determined by the respective professor, but then again it could be the product of group discussion and arrangement. For some other subjects, participation and presentations were the decisive factor. This system left considerable room to manoeuvre, and, of course, it was often up to the students to decide what they want to do and what is the best for them, not to mention the fact that it required good negotiating skills and a readiness to compromise.
Attendance was a very controversial issue. It was completely left to the students to decide whether they wanted to attend a class or not. In spite of the fact that many did want to attend regularly to benefit from the classes, the freedom of choice always tempted some others to take the opportunity and spend their time in a different way. The point of conflict was that there was no extra bonus or some kind of recognition for those who did participate in the seminars and classes regularly. The end result of pass or fail was irrespective of being an 'orderly' student, except for those few subjects where attendance was decisive in passing or failing.
This question then aimed at finding out the extent and intensity of the students' responsibilities or freedom of choice and action in their previous studies. It is clear that this fact is very much culture-bound, and the more a culture is centred on the group, the less freedom there is.
Question 2
The atmosphere of the classes was quite informal and friendly, though there was still a distance between the professors and the students. Most of the professors in this program are not permanently based in Fulda. It is quite usual in Germany to live in one city and work in another. Due to this fact, the professors were available only within their previously announced office hours, and it was difficult to consult them outside those hours.
The aim of the question was to find out how formal the relationship between the professors and students was in their home countries. And whether this relationship could in any way change the direction chosen later in life.
Question 3
In Germany individuals are responsible for finding the answers to their questions. Information is not available unless one asks for it, and even then it is not so easy to get the information that another has spent a lot of time procuring. This is partly the result of a reaction to the collective obedience during World War II. Each individual should be responsible for what s/he does. Hence, one collects information, but the final decision is made by the individual herself/himself.
One result of this cultural aspect in the education system is that the universities do not offer services such as an education counsellor, who advises
the students each term on which subjects to take and what to do. Even for writing a Master's thesis, the amount of guidance is quite limited. For foreign students this was very negative, because they believed they deserved more guidance due to their lack of knowledge about the system as well as the culture. With this question the writer wanted to find out how guided the previous studies were.
Question 4
As was mentioned before, the educational system in Germany is very liberal, and one can speak one's mind without being afraid that it might affect the end results. In ICEUS, the professors' treatment of the students was very objective. It was actually experienced that the exam results of the students were not at all affected by a personal dislike on the part of the teachers. The writer does not want to generalize about all the universities or the educational system in Germany from these findings. It is quite possible that the ICEUS program was an exception in this respect, but it is also common in German culture that one can have very heated discussions with g people and go out for a beer together afterwards.
With this in the back of the writer's mind, the writer wanted to find out to what extent the students had to be careful about their behaviour and what they said during their previous studies - and if this could affect their exam results. Furthermore, one could find out to what extent the individual capabilities and competence is of importance; that is whether the background culture is more individual oriented or collective.
Question 5
The aim of the question was to find out how much cross-cultural experience the participants had. Though knowing the language and being aware of cultural differences can help to overcome culture shock more easily, it does not entirely prevent the shock and its consequences.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
