The initial planning for this project began in early 2001, culminating in the following summary being submitted with our proposal to the Canada-EC Program for Cooperation in Higher Education and Training:

The project aims at enhancing cultural production studies in an international learning environment. The project includes the exchange of teachers and administrative staff, plus 54 students will study abroad. The project will generate a common transfer system for student exchange, a common cultural production module (using intranet and video conferencing equipment) of 10 ECTS. The core of the project is to combine different methods of cultural production from within two continents and four countries. The participants will gain international and multi cultural experience. The results will be disseminated in a guidebook including analysis of Canadian and European experiences.

The lead EU institution was Humanistinen ammattikorkeakoulu (HUMAK) in Finland and the lead Canadian institution was Université du Québec à Montréal. This document contains an account of the experience of each of the six partners, a list of tips and recommendations for similar projects, and a conclusion. Within a three year period, we were able to accomplish most of our initial aims. Specifically, we developed and taught a common module titled Cultural Production in an International Environment, in which we used the internet and video conferencing, students went on exchanges, and faculty went on exchanges. The faculty, staff and students who were involved in this project all learned as much outside the classroom and curriculum as they did inside. The cross-cultural experiences made available through exchanges and sharing views with people from other countries cannot be provided through texts alone.

Nipissing University assumed primary responsibility for the WebCT learning platform implementation and maintenance. WebCT was effective as both a collaborative and a teaching vehicle. Content and guidelines for the common module were mounted on the WebCT site and the various web tools it features provided access to email and chat rooms for students and teachers. In order to create a live presence, communications through WebCT were augmented by video conference sessions. Polycom Videoconferencing using ISDN lines at a rate of 128Kbs was the initial choice. The line rate of 128 Kbs was first selected to minimize costs of connecting six sites. Bridging was done in Canada, again, to reduce costs. Although the conferencing was possible at this speed, the quality was not satisfactory and the decision was made to increase the line speed to 256 Kbs and to change the bridging service to a new provider. One site remained at 128 Kbs. Internet or IP conferencing was tried, but this approach depends too much on network variables that are uncontrollable. Images between sites were inconsistent, images froze on screen, switching between sites was slow and periodically the system locked up due to traffic congestion on the network. A dedicated network between sites across the Atlantic was not available for this project.

HOGESCHOOL ROTTERDAM
Anja Stofberg

The three year project that ran under the title of Cultural Production in an International Environment was placed within the Cultural and Social Education (CMV) course programme, a programme within the Rotterdam Insititute for Social Work (RISO), one of the many institutes of Hogeschool Rotterdam, Netherlands.

The project, which was also often referred to as the EU Canada project, had an enormous impact on the course programme and institute, leading to 175 full time students taking the common module developed within this international project, 4 lecturers going on a teacher exchange to Canada and 9 students taking semester courses in Canadian universities. The wide approach of this EU Canada project was fully in line with the policy intentions of the Cultural and Social Education programme and came at a timely moment. The overall impact was received very favourably by all concerned despite the many challenges that had to be faced during the process.

The project aimed at enhancing cultural production studies in an international environment. The project included the exchange of teachers/faculty and students and was meant to combine different methods of cultural production from within two continents and four countries in the framework of a common 10 ECTS course, using intranet and video conferencing as tools. These aims fitted in broadly with the policy lines in the Cultural and Social Education department where the project was placed. In particular, the multiple approaches (student and teacher exchanges together with a common international course for the students “at home”) were seen as a potentially strong avenue to introduce internationalisation to the department, as one approach could strengthen the other ones and thus have a powerful and at the same time wide effect. Hogeschool Rotterdam was therefore fully committed to work together with the other partner institutions to ensure the full implementation of these project ingredients to the best of its ability.

The whole project effectually began at the first transatlantic meeting for us in December 2001, where the six different participating institutions met each other for the first time. As the partners within the project had a wide variety of academic backgrounds it was necessary to explore what we had in common and where we differed from each other to discover for ourselves in which ways we complemented each other's disciplines, expertise, educational approaches and teaching methods. Varying levels of expertise and willingness with open and distance learning methods were discerned which meant that we were bound to work with a variety of instructional methods to make the project a success.

We felt it was important to make a common start within the partnership by defining for ourselves what our starting points were as far as our own concept of culture was concerned, which led to a document labelled our common concept of culture. This activity was done via the channel that we intended to use for the rest of the project, which was the digital platform of WebCT. This is a platform commonly used in the province of Ontario, Canada and Nipissing University kindly offered to host parts of the project under their WebCT licence and to provide the necessary technical assistance in that area. In fact all the steps taken and envisaged in the preparation year proved to be appropriate mechanisms to facilitate direct timely contacts, and to implement promptly and effectively the decisions taken.

The three pronged approach within the project, namely student exchange, teacher exchange and the common course built into the regular curriculum, required different organisational methods, each with its own difficulties or challenges to overcome. As all the partners had one year of preparation to sort out and discuss the procedures we were able to get all this in place before the actual start of the three main activities.

Getting things organised around student exchanges meant starting from scratch for our department! We had never before had any students coming from or going abroad to take courses and gain course credits. In the preparation year it was decided to keep things relatively simple by partnering two universities with each other for the first exchanges, one Canadian university linked with a European one, which for us turned out to be York University in Toronto. Being partnered with York University was an enormous help as this university had many well-established procedures in place for exchange-related tasks, all elaborately tried and tested by large numbers of students (and faculty) over a number of years. Handy tools for procedures (such as reference forms, informational materials, selection procedures, etc.) together with many email exchanges with York International taught us a lot about how to deal successfully with the issues around student exchanges. Clear communications between York and Rotterdam definitely facilitated organising the exchanges, despite the differences (e.g. in semester dates, exam periods, types of exams, different credit systems, etc.) faced by both sides.

On the other hand, the challenges within our own university did not make things any easier, as there were several obstacles along the way. One was housing for students. At the start of the project this was not easily arranged, but it improved over the course of the project (due to more favourable circumstances induced by a higher level within the university). Another major challenge was never really resolved. This was providing a good variety of courses for exchange students throughout the different programmes of the university. The Arts Academy for example, when requested, refused to open its doors to exchange students who were not partnered with their own Arts department. Despite the truly open and international atmosphere that this department breathes, they reserved courses in the English language only for their own partner students. Other English language programmes that were willing to open up their courses for the Faculty of Fine Arts exchange students from York University were not suitable due to the different disciplines being taught there (e.g. economics,
management and finance). This meant that a major effort had to be made within our own department to offer exchange students a worthwhile and complete set of courses that could cover or substitute the course load of the students in their home university.

In the end, offering a combination (fully in English) of classes, self-study courses, practical courses and a student-driven learning by doing programme within the cultural sector/working field (based on our good working relations with the professional sector) was the satisfactory outcome for the students on exchange in Rotterdam. Moreover, we assigned “international buddies” to assist the exchange students wherever helpful and necessary, which worked very well.

For the two graduate students on exchange from UQAM, these arrangements were not necessary as these students had their own independent projects to perform within the Cultural Production theme, accurately and clearly designed in advance by themselves in conjunction with their professor.

In contrast, for our own students going on exchange to York University (and in the second year also to Nipissing University) there was a wide variety of courses to choose from, which they greatly appreciated given the many diverse interests of our cultural and social students. Our students were however faced with differences in semester dates, which actually meant that the majority of students going to Canada could not finish their first semester (consisting of 2 separate terms) properly and in the regular way in Rotterdam but were forced to leave before the end and before the exams of the second term. Many tailor made but labour intensive solutions were found by our Head of Student Affairs to accommodate the situations of the individual students (occasionally to the dislike of the instructors involved). This included adjusting computer registration programmes and changing the regular, permanent individual student curricula. The students then returned while the second semester was two thirds on its way, which again made demands on the flexibility of staff and students involved. Despite these difficulties all our students have benefited enormously from the exchange opportunity and returned with a list of course credits as designed and envisaged before departure. We felt it was important that all of the partners established full academic recognition for all the transatlantic courses the students took while on exchange, which was achieved. For this purpose we also implemented a standard calculation of 10 ECTS amounting to 6 Canadian credits, although at a later stage we realised that this was not a fully fair equation.

All in all, by the end of the project we had 9 students going to two different Canadian universities and we were the host institution for 10 coming from three different Canadian universities.

As with student exchange, faculty exchanges also were new to us and have proved to be an extremely enriching experience both for the four lecturers involved and overall to our department. We felt it was important to have different lecturers experience the
internationalisation processes first hand and then share their experiences with the faculty staff within the department, which has resulted in a wider interest in things international in many ways.

Compared to the organisation of student exchanges, faculty exchanges were easier, less demanding that is, to organise. Different weeks were selected across the second and third year of the project, depending on different requirements and schedules with the faculty concerned. Via email correspondence things could be swiftly arranged, building on the agreements we had made in the preparation year and via meetings, including video conferences. Again, we learned from the way our Canadian partner York University had set up their exchanges.

Our first faculty exchange from Rotterdam to York University preceded the first student exchange. This facilitated the departure of the students due to leave for York University two months later, as much essential information around practicalities was collected and disseminated. Our second faculty exchange took place while our first exchange students were nearing the end of their semester abroad which was much appreciated by those exchange students.

In the preparation year it was decided that the common 10 ECTS course would be run in the second semester of the academic year, roughly running from January to May, depending on the academic calendars of the different institutes. For us this covered the third term best of all, as this term starts end of January, runs for 8 weeks, is followed by 2 exam weeks and finishes mid-April. Ideally we envisaged this common course suitable for our year 3 or year 4 students. However all year 3 students are on work placements in that period of the year, so not attending any classes, and our year 4 students are working on their specialisation and graduation, which we simply could not manoeuvre. This automatically led us to implementing the common course in the second year for all our full time students (first run: 100 students, second run: 75) in line with our broad implementation policy lines.

Organisation wise, implementing the common course was the most difficult issue for all the partners and for Rotterdam it was no exception. In the preparation year we realised that there were so many differences and so many obstacles to overcome that it was very hard if not impossible to run a common course for the complete period at the same time by all the lecturers for all the students. Decisions had to be made on how to run the common module within each institute. Each had its own procedures, its own academic calendar, its own didactic and pedagogical approach (including its own assessments methods and credit system), in fact also its own discipline (which varied from cultural and social studies to design and to linguistic studies) and its own language in four of the six institutes. That English would be the common language of the course was decided after a number of debates. The next decision was to open up the material from each university for the others and to develop all the materials in such a way that the home university could easily implement their own course including any items of their choice from the materials of the other universities. As each lecturer was presumed to know his/her target audience and expertise best of all, it was left with the lecturers individually involved to decide what and how to implement this common course.

The differences in start, end and duration of the envisaged term implied that for each institute decisions had to be taken at the local level; shifting these dates was simply out of the question, the course needed to be fitted into the regular system at each of the universities. The result was that students could not study the common course at the six sites simultaneously for the entire run of the course, which was unfortunate. Still, we did have Tuesday as our common day for the course, to give presentations to each other via video conferences, to have students ask each other questions and to exchange views.

A number of years before the outset of the project Rotterdam had started working with a special didactic approach which is often referred to as Problem/Project Based Learning. This approach expects students to go through learning materials in an independent and active way, reporting on their findings after studying text materials. This method was used for the material that was made available by the other international partners and ran alongside the specific Rotterdam component of the common course under the title of Storytelling, quite another didactic approach which in fact complemented the other.

Our students took their courses in their own groups (4 in 2003 and 3 in 2004) as usual, going to Cultural Production classes and to Storytelling classes all on the same day of the week, leading to 8 ECTS credits for the Cultural Production component plus 2 ECTS credits for the Storytelling component if finished successfully. The Canadian students on exchange in Rotterdam were divided over the different groups to promote the use of English on the one hand, but most of all to facilitate the exchange of first hand experiences between Canada and the Netherlands. The Storytelling lecturer made her material available to the partners via a booklet and during one video conference explained how she worked with our students (including the incoming exchange students) by illustrating the Storytelling method.

For the Cultural Production classes four, then three, different experienced lecturers were selected to guide the students together with the incoming exchange students through specially selected materials of the other five universities. The international material selection was made according to the interests, the relevant theories, the required study load (in accordance with the number of credits) and most of all the English language skills of the Dutch students. Students also could make use of a reader where the basic material could easily be found, e.g. assessment procedures, communication protocols, relevant websites, characteristics of good postings on WebCT, etc.

The non-mobile students took this international Cultural Production course within their own Rotterdam university together with the four Canadian exchange students, and the international platform was nearby in the shape of WebCT, where students could exchange views, discuss common issues and so on. For this purpose and also to make up for the large difference in student numbers within the different participating sites, we decided to divide our students into small subgroups of 5, which worked very well in fact, as students could (within their subgroup) compensate for any lack in English language skills, and still contribute ideas and post a more balanced view discussed within their subgroup.

However, while working with this digital platform our students experienced some frustrations in two different ways. On the one hand they felt overawed by the level of (academic) English on the part of the Canadian students from York University, this was especially so during the first run of the common course, less so in the second run. On the other hand they regretted getting few responses to their contributions and postings on WebCT from the students within the other institutes (except York University). Although WebCT was the ideal way of having an international dialogue on different cultural issues, we felt it was not used to its full potential.

Another concern with the non-mobile students during the running of the common course was the reading material and the students' preparation before class sessions. As studying English texts was regarded and experienced as more difficult than studying materials in their own language, students tended to prepare less well for class, thereby placing a heavier burden on the lecturer than was meant and desirable. The envisaged Problem/Project Based learning approach, where students are expected to take a very active (if not leading) role and which is quite common within our department, did not work satisfactorily because of this. It led to the supervising lecturers turning gradually into the role of old-fashioned lecturers really leading the classes and shifting the balance to transfer of knowledge and to more teacher-oriented education, while students passively expected the lecturer to initiate nearly all interactions. This was
experienced as rather unfortunate by the lecturers involved as they were accustomed to value their effectiveness of teaching by way of the amount of two/multiple-way communication patterns in class. Apart from this, the lecturers involved faced two other challenges, namely operating in a non-native language as well as applying materials that were not their own, dilemmas broadly recognised within the
partnership from the start. This is probably why none of the other participating institutions applied this more innovative but potentially riskier method within their universities and generally restricted themselves mainly to their own materials applying their usual standard teaching methods.

All in all the large groups of the non-mobile students taking the international course in Cultural Production definitely benefited from this positive international experience and increased their cultural competences through this unique opportunity that resulted from the collaborative input of the five other participating institutions.

In Rotterdam we used a variety of methods, both qualitative and quantitative, to evaluate the Cultural Production course. On the one hand, we followed our usual procedures, such as our standard evaluation forms at the end of each course (quantitative) as well as interim (and final) meetings with group representatives under the chairmanship of a faculty member, without lecturers being present (qualitative). These procedures are organised as part of our common quality assurance regulations, as far as courses are concerned. We also asked all our students to shortly evaluate the course individually as part of the written assignments for the Cultural Production course.

Evaluation of the student exchanges was done via talks with, and written evaluation and learning reports from, the students involved within our institute. Besides this, recommendations and tips for further improvement came from the partners with whom we were linked to optimize the conditions for the exchange students going to Canada the following year. Evaluation was also done in meetings where the newly selected exchange students were present to facilitate contact between all the people involved with the transatlantic exchange. The issue of student exchange was also a permanent item on the agenda of all the meetings and video conferences within the partnership, which gave each partner the opportunity to discuss any concerns, evaluate progress and attune procedures.

Faculty coming back from an exchange usually related their experiences in staff meetings where they shared information with their colleagues and at the same time evaluated the exchange. Operating in a foreign institute in a different country and using a language that is not your own native language is not something for the faint-hearted. For those who saw it as a challenge it proved to be an enormously enriching experience, both on a professional as well as a personal level. A stay for a week within a different institute than your own provides an enormous variety of fresh professional insights via the many formal and informal talks with faculty members (next to the lectures prepared in advance), an experience that we decided to reserve for four different faculty members who had voluntarily opted for this special opportunity. Incoming faculty had a different but additional impact, namely on the students. Lectures from invited faculty were fitted into regular courses as best as possible and introduced students to different angles than those presented by their regular instructors.

Within the project partnership, beginning with the “learning by doing” approach adopted in the preparation year, we regularly evaluated the steps we had taken on the way to the first run of the project with the students. We shared and simultaneously evaluated our first video conference experiences for example, as we intended to use these both for the faculty meetings as well as for our students during the common Cultural Production course. Gradually we learned how to organise these video conferences satisfactorily for all concerned, by looking back on them and adjusting matters e.g. by establishing a clear agenda and other structural procedures during the sessions. Still, technical setbacks sometimes prevented the video conferences from becoming an overall success.

After the first run of all the activities following the preparation year, a number of elements were evaluated among all the partners. At the end of the academic year Rotterdam formulated a number of evaluative questions around a few core issues which were broadly discussed in the partner meeting held at the start of the second academic year, well in advance of the second run to make implementation of new decisions feasible. During that meeting (September 2003) we also received feedback through the interim report prepared by an outside evaluator who had been monitoring our activities from a distance. Although we all felt that only a limited selection of the project activities was evaluated, we discussed the areas where there was room for improvement and took decisions to improve matters as best as possible.

As mentioned above, we selected WebCT as our electronic medium to communicate among the participating institutions in the preparation year, in order to get used to it and subsequently implement it for the running of the common course on Cultural Production. Accounts and pass words were given out by the technical staff of Nipissing University so that all faculty (and later, students) were able to access the website. In fact, there were two separate electronic spaces on WebCT, one for faculty communication only and one for the common course allowing student access.

Regrettably, as mentioned before, the digital platform was not used to its full potential in our view, due to a number of reasons. Unfortunately, the medium was never fully adopted and embraced by all of the faculty involved in the common course. Using digital media requires different pedagogical methods for one's courses, which may have been part of the issue. Another thing, despite initial agreements, not many reading materials were distributed via the web or WebCT, which meant that reading packages had to be sent by regular mail or distributed at the live meetings we had and if used, copied in large numbers for the sake of the students.

In contrast to this electronic medium, video conferencing was regarded as a very positive tool. It was easily adopted by all the project partners, even though this was also, like WebCT, an entirely new medium and experience to most of the project participants. Seen as a benefit and addition to other learning processes, it was applied for lectures, presentations and meetings in general and added a particularly special element to the electronic discussions by presenting the visual side to the whole project. As we had a large number of students in Rotterdam taking the common course we specially selected small groups of students for each video conference, since these video conferences were not seen as suitable for attendance in large auditoria.

Within Hogeschool Rotterdam there is an internationalisation working group, headed by a senior officer in charge of all international affairs within the university. It is in this working group that the department of Cultural and Social Education introduced and related their experiences and the effects of the EU Canada programme. Sharing this kind of information within the university is generally regarded as beneficial and educational for all staff involved in internationalisation processes. It also generated an interest in stronger cooperation efforts with Canada, which seemed a very interesting partner for many different departments within our university.

This report/handbook is a second step in our dissemination process, following the presentation of the project at an international conference in Finland on Intercultural Work (summer 2002) and the presentation of the brochure (winter 2002) developed specifically for this project to raise awareness elsewhere. Another step we took was holding two talks at the transatlantic meeting in Lisbon (December 2003) to share our experiences and thoughts with others, one more forward looking talk by Marina Meeuwisse and one joint talk by Anja Stofberg in conjunction with York University faculty partner Norma Sue Fisher-Stitt. We are also planning to approach the Canada Bulletin, an on-line news page distributed by the Canadian Embassy (in The Hague) to those interested in Canadian affairs in general.

Besides this we intend to apply the methods and strategies adopted during this partnership to all of our international contacts, now and in the future, for student and teacher mobility as well as for composing a common course run via a digital medium.

One surprising development was that our Dutch students were recognised and labelled by the Canadian students as European students and by doing that, confronted our Dutch students with a new view on their (Dutch - European) identity. This gave rise to many interesting debates on European identity among the many students taking the Cultural Production course in Rotterdam.

Another interesting outcome due to the organisation of the student mobility element of the project is that this has definitely promoted interest among our students to consider a study period abroad and actually take the jump and go (and then come back with a list of credits). Before the project we had only seen some degree of interest in going international, restricted to work placements abroad.

Last but certainly not least, we would like to mention the wonderful and unexpected interest from our Finnish partners in the Storytelling method and course given by our Rotterdam lecturer within the project. In November 2003 a HUMAK delegation of lecturers and students came to Rotterdam to be specially instructed in the method in order to apply this within their Finnish work field organisations and possibly within their course programme.

No matter how much you try to organise and discuss issues via digital media such as email and WebCT, this proved to be not always satisfactory as not all the different partners reacted which was something that we had always seen as an important condition to move forward. In addition to email, video conferences and WebCT, live meetings with all the partners present were an absolute necessity to take joint decisions and to discuss the different approaches that each partner proposed. Each time we held a meeting we had a full agenda with usually a number of permanent items to discuss, like student exchanges and teacher/faculty exchanges.

Usually it proved difficult to chair the meetings, as there were many, many issues to be clarified, discussed AND decided. As there was generally speaking no clear leadership, neither in the meetings nor in the partnership, we were sometimes faced with a number of difficult (fine-tuning) issues which kept hanging in the air. Besides this, the timing of the annual transatlantic meetings would have been more to
advantage if they had been held in September or October; especially for second and third year projects. Meetings earlier in the academic year allow for more preparation time in order to run a common course in the second semester.

Nevertheless, it was an extraordinary experience to be in such international company to share educational experiences, didactic strategies and so on and to do all this in such a friendly and stimulating atmosphere. No matter how difficult the issues on the table were, all the partners were open to discussing matters and were generally helpful in assisting each other whenever necessary.

We also realise that this could never have been achieved without the subsidies from the EU Canada programme, for which we are truly grateful.

HUMANISTINEN AMMATTIKORKEAKOULU (HUMAK)
Pekka Vartiainen

The project Cultural Production in an International Environment aimed to create a common module between six universities and polytechnics from Europe and Canada. The main fields of study were the production and conceptualisation of cultural activities in an international or multi-cultural setting. One of the objectives of the project was to encourage the exchange of students, teachers and administrative staff. In this student-centered, interactively planned module the study groups in each location were intensively in contact by use of video conferencing and Internet education software (WebCT).

Very often the way courses are presented does not fit the way they are put into practice. I'm pleased to say, that with this course, this was not so. The Cultural Production project was a success. It produced a common course module from the partners involved, it managed to encourage the exchange of students and teachers, and everything was put together using modern pedagogical tools which helped the distance between Europe and Canada to, almost, disappear.

Humanities Polytechnic (HUMAK) was founded in 1998 and received permanent Polytechnic status in 2000. HUMAK has twelve units around Finland with a total of about 1500 students. The students can study in three different degree programmes: Civic Activities and Youth Work, Cultural Production and Management, and Sign Language Interpreter.

At HUMAK, it was the Cultural Production and Management programme that participated in this international project. The programme exists at four different units, located in Joensuu, Kauniainen, Korpilahti and Turku. From these, the Turku
Unit organized the Finnish participation in this project. It was also at Turku that most of the teaching and teaching exchanges occurred.

From the beginning of the course it was clear that each of the partners should create their own view of the subject matter. The aim of the methodology was to give students and teachers multiple views on things relating to the topic. In this way the common teaching module became richer in perspectives and also helped the people involved to develop their own thinking and working around the subject.

The HUMAK segment of the module concentrated on the question of tradition. The course we offered was titled The Transmission of Tradition, described as follows in the course outline:

We will deal with questions concerning the transmission of tradition. We will concentrate on Finnish culture and give some examples of the theme. What we find interesting is, how Finnish culture has been formed in a European context, between the Western and Eastern cultural climate. How is tradition being transmitted? What are the local aspects of Finnish culture and how are they being transmitted to international cultural themes? How Finnish is Finnish culture after all?

Our starting point was in tradition and the change of culture-- how different forms of habit, belief, custom, value or meaning are passed or transmitted from one generation to another or from one ethnic group to another in multicultural societies. How do traditions change in a multicultural context?

In our course we used some key concepts relating to our theme. A valuable tool in this context was the question, What happens to traditions when they become products and are commercialized? Our idea was to give our own students, and also our international partners, some examples where it is possible to see how tradition has been transformed into a product.

The idea for the module was partly based on an idea of Lauri Honko, a well-known Finnish professor of Folklore, about culture's capacity to vary and change. Characteristics of the culture are not to be found in the symbols or materials
included in the culture. Instead, the characteristics can be found in the way these symbols are connected and in the way some of them are emphasized. The same material and content may be found in different cultures but with completely different meanings and status. An example of this would be souvenirs in their original and new environments. Thus cultural expressions can be studied as texts, and decoding different signal codes in these texts is the interest of cultural research.

Another idea in the module was based on theories or aspects of multiculturalism. These can be seen either from a pedagogical viewpoint, or can feature analysis about actual phenomena in different societies (see Pertti Alasuutari: “Art, Entertainment, Culture, and Nation,” Cultural Studies, May 2001). Although several globalization theories suggest that the nation-state and national identity are in decline, the
general concern about the homogenization of national cultures shows that at least at that level nationhood is alive and well: it is treated as a self-evident fact and starting point. Yet, if people are asked to define a national culture or cultural identity, they cannot do much more than resort to national stereotypes, and it is even more difficult to assess how strong or weak its condition is (p. 158).

These ideas (the transmission of culture; the production of cultural and national symbols) were studied with partner institutes and study groups by giving actual examples from a local and concrete point of view.

The structure of the course was based on a three-block-model, which included the following ways of studying and approaches:

Definitions of cultural transmission and tradition including local, regional, national dimensions; issues about cultural stereotypes; and cultural policies that have an impact on culture were explored. The key-question in this part of the course was, What do we understand by cultural production?
Students worked in small groups. Each group produced a small survey, where they studied an example of actual cultural phenomena. This example related to the concepts used in the first part of the course. Examples of the group projects were put on the WebCT pages and also were presented in the video conference sessions in which the students were involved.

In the final part of the course students and teachers evaluated together how the themes of the course had been studied: what kind of new questions concerning the transmission of tradition had been raised and how can we analyze similar theoretical or practical cultural issues in the future.

Although the students’ focus was mainly, as was indicated, on cultural tradition and questions relating to cultural production, the course also provided the opportunity to take a closer look at Finnish language, art and the modern media world (television, radio, etc.). This part of the course was presented in co-operation with other universities and polytechnics in Turku.

To get a credit from the course students were obliged to take part in group work and produce together with other members of the group a written and an oral version (presentation) of a project. They also were required to be active in WebCT discussions and in the international video conferences. Finally, course participants had to maintain a personal learning diary which was to include an evaluative aspect of the course and the project.

The first time the course was offered (Spring 2003), 10 students took part. Six of these students came from other partners in the Cultural Production project (Canada and Italy). In the second presentation of the course (Spring 2004), eight students were involved. There were Erasmus-students from France as well as students from this project's partner universities (Italy and Canada). Although the number of students was relatively low, the students' enthusiasm was high. Their attitude towards the course was positive and from the teacher's point of view the experience was very rewarding.

Teacher exchanges from HUMAK also took place. Two teachers visited Nipissing University in Spring 2003, and then York University in Spring 2004. Both teachers presented their research in classes that were connected to the project. As for the student exchanges, there were altogether ten HUMAK students that visited Canada within the Cultural Production project.

HUMAK's contribution to the common module was mainly based on the use of WebCT and video conferences. Through WebCT it was possible to interact with other partners (students and teachers), put some material onto the web and that way expand the communication between partners. It was also possible for the students to look more closely at what the other universities were doing at the same time and get some new information on common topics. The aim of this kind of working was to broaden both students’ and teachers’ views on culture and cultural production.

What we tried to do in our course was to put the themes of the common module inside our own course offered for the students in Finland. This was done by organizing special days in the week when the only focus was to concentrate on what the other partners were doing. Students worked in small groups, making contact with other students abroad, giving lectures to other groups in Finland explaining the partners’ work, etc. In the concluding stage everything was put together in a seminar where the purpose of the common module was evaluated and studied again from the local point of view. This kind of working was well appreciated by the students. By giving more responsibility to the students, more independence, a student-centered learning method was put into practice. The results from this approach were very impressive.

Evaluation took place at the end of the course. In each of the evaluations (Spring 2003 and Spring 2004) students were asked to answer, briefly, some basic questions, such as: what were your expectations of the course, what was the most interesting part of the course, how would you describe the international part of the course and what could have been done better.

Referring to the students’ expectations we could say that their expectations were not high due to a lack of information! This was a challenge for all the partners. How could we be more effective in giving information on the courses? In many papers there was a great interest in Finnish culture and a desire to learn more about the Finnish way of life. In addition, international communications and the use of new media were stressed.

What the students found interesting in the course varied quite a lot. For some students the theoretical material produced in the course was the most revealing aspect; to others, meeting other international students, video conferencing or visiting different kinds of cultural events in Turku were most interesting. As an example here is one response:

For me the most interesting part of the course was the theoretical aspect, as this challenged the themes of transmission of tradition, identity, territory and memory. Relating these themes to Finnish culture and our own experiences was what interested me most.

In the answers relating to the question on international aspects of the course, students gave interesting insights into the use of WebCT and video conferencing. To some students these both were “just a waste of time.” Others found that there was lots of potential in using them as a learning method. Video conferencing faced problems with the use of technology and language, WebCT couldn't be used as well as
desired because of the different time zones. Some students were also frustrated trying to interact with other students abroad without getting any response to their questions and comments. I feel that the WebCT part of the course turned out to be a little unsuccessful. Not enough students took the time to participate. For the video conference I think it's a question of language, because it was really hard to always understand.

If you look at the students’ evaluation comments you can get a critical view on what happened during the course. It's also a question of doing things better, not just trusting old ways and methods. From this perspective there were lots of problems that wait to be solved:

How can project leaders make sure that everyone in every location is doing the same thing (or almost) at the same time?

How can partners best deal with the question of the language barrier?

How can teachers motivate students to use WebCT?

How can WebCT be organized so that it's also easy for those who are not familiar with new technology to use?

How is it best to organize a common module so that there will be no mistakes about the content and so that it will address all the ambitious objectives relating to the aims of the course?

How can we make this kind of international co-operation more efficient, easier to use, more tempting for students and staff to participate?

Despite all these problems, despite all these critical and somewhat concerned remarks, I myself, as a teacher, couldn't be happier to read these words written by a student who took part in this course:

I think that this course was an overall success. I am left feeling educated [---] this is what an “exchange” is about. I appreciated all the teachers and topics discussed. This course was a unique experience that I will take with me through life.

If you can experience something like this - in a school - who could say that it was all in vain?

NIPISSING UNIVERSITY
Terry Dokis

Nipissing University was proud to be a member of this international consortium of educators and their institutions. The innovations and benefits resulting from these efforts will continue to serve local, national and international interests well into the future. The aims and objectives outlined by the project have been met through much creative collaboration to deal with the diverse pedagogy, administrative methods of operation and variances in the delivery of educational technologies.

During this project, a closer understanding developed between the European Union and Canada in the didactic domains and cultural experiences that we shared. We were able to track universalities as well as our uniqueness cross-culturally. The educational and cultural issues we face in our own communities, how we pursue our daily lives and the subsequent responses and cultural products employed to sustain us were at the heart of this research. Important also was the focus on developing an internationally integrated or “common module” using a variety of educational methodologies supported by various vehicles of technology.

Nipissing offered a distinct unit of study in the development of the overall module. It highlighted the First Nations people both locally and across Canada, and explored the rich and varied contributions they continue to make in all aspects of cultural production. Encompassed in this report is how we dealt with the aims and objects, our difficulties and discoveries, and the subsequent outcomes.

Administratively the project helped Nipissing University enhance our student exchanges which is a relatively new endeavour with respect to international students. The length and scope of this project succeeded in mobilizing us to advance our international profile while also meeting the needs of the project itself. We were successful in developing a Standard Credit Value with the partners that will now make it a much simpler process to accept exchange students from Europe. We have further developed our ability and procedures for accepting exchange faculty. In dealing with the number of faculty exchanges over this period we were able to gain valuable experience in issues of transportation, accommodation and time scheduling. Exposure of the exchange faculty to not only the student body but to the public at large also advanced the overall impact of the project. They gave presentations to broader public audiences within the university and to organizations in the local community. Through our newly formed international office that was beginning to expand its operations during this same period, we were able to solidify other aspects of faculty support such as allotting separate office space, internet connections and administrative and secretarial support.

In the connections that have arisen with various partners from the project we have made further applications and proposals for internationally funded projects. A case in point is the recent proposal for a project titled Cultural Production in a Modern Society. We will again be partnered with Finland and also new members from Spain, the Czech Republic, Poland and several universities in both Eastern and Western Canada.

Nipissing had previous experience using video conferencing in our region but not globally. As a further example, we are now using video conferencing in another project with partner universities from the United States and an emerging European university. This will be a shared MBA program delivered in part through video conferencing and what we learned from its use in the Cultural Production project. From working with video conferencing we have also seen that there needs to be a clearly defined agreement among partners in the use of hardware and connections for video conferencing and that everyone must commit to acquiring this standard. Partners in the preliminary stages of a project need to examine, fund and use the teaching platforms that are made available. A further useful process is initiating a period of training whereby the partners and students themselves can acquire the necessary up-to-date knowledge on the technology being used so that everyone is largely at the same place and aware of the divergences as well as the limitations of its use. When faculty and others had time to become accustomed to and put the technology into practice it became increasingly effective. In this way too there is less chance of avoiding the technology and a greater opportunity for faculty to be creative and expansive in their delivery of curricula. It was evident that various technologies contain their own levels of effectiveness and limitations within the “whole systems” approach we were endeavoring to employ in the development of an international curriculum. Partners continued to evaluate this process and attempted to choose the best possible combinations, ameliorations and compromises. This project encompassed a wide variety of approaches in international curriculum development and the dissemination of information. Both traditional and relatively new pedagogic and didactic domains as well as a synthesis of these, was required to advance the effectiveness of the project objectives.

The student exchanges proved to be very important in providing a well rounded learning experience. The students became more familiar with Canadian university modes of administrative operation, our curriculum methodologies and the actual course and program content. They experienced Canadian culture first hand from learning activities both inside and outside the classroom. European students came in groups of typically three or four and were housed on the main campus. They were individually paired with Canadian students so as to make their stay more enriched by this form of side-by-side learning in the academic and social-cultural environment. These students were encouraged to enroll in courses pertaining to the project initiatives and to their own particular interests or curiosities inherent in this travel and learning opportunity. Two courses in particular were used as foundational courses, Native Creativity and the Arts, and Introduction to Native Studies. They were used because of their direct influence on our cultural production model. The instructor of these courses was also an international project participant and had the advantage of being able to monitor the progress of the exchange students more closely. These courses spoke strongly to the aspect of cultural products and the marketing by and of Canada’s Native peoples. Students were able to receive the full six credits by being given additional lectures to bring them “up to speed” with the rest of the students. In other situations they took “half” or three credit courses because they typically enrolled in January when a number of these types of courses start their schedule. It was seen by the partners that mid-winter was most often the optimum time for exchanging students because they had the opportunity to commence their school year in their own institutions and to finish the year on exchange. The holiday time period in between allowed the students to travel and to be accommodated at the host institution and acquaint themselves with the new environment in ample time for school commencement. In order to complete their courses the exchange students were required to regularly attend classes and were given essays, assignments and exams. Occasionally they were taken on field trips to art galleries, museums and places of cultural interest both locally and provincially.

The Native Studies program was also fortunate to recruit a tutor who worked with the exchange students by regularly reviewing with them course content and assisting them with essay writing and assignments. The tutor was available in office hours and on email and generally mentored the students in the university environment. The tutor also monitored the usage of WebCT and corresponded with students on the open forum and message board. His effort proved to be valuable to the students’ success and was a support for faculty. It is recommended that such a position be undertaken in future projects of this nature where appropriate.

Faculty exchanges were another important project component. Exchange faculty were involved with students’ learning by providing lectures and presentations in the host countries on components of their units from the project and their own research specialties as well. The development of a common module required that they participate and experiment with educational methodologies through side-by-side teaching with host partners. While on exchange, faculty were afforded the opportunity to liaise with colleagues, to visit and support their own students and to familiarize the host students with the courses and teachers they would be coming to work with on their own exchanges. Much quality collaboration took place at these times in working out project details, solving issues and sharing ideas that cannot take place through the inherent limitations of internet or other secondary forms of communication such as telephone or mailing.

Nipissing University offered distance teaching and discussion through video conferencing on the internet. While it does not replace direct contact it did play a significant role in the successful delivery of instructional material. The instructor was able to easily use most of the informational tools of a regular classroom such as overheads, blackboard notes and objects for display. In a cultural production course visuals and actual objects were important in creating stimulated learning. This method also brought a “face” or faculty presence to the learning and was available to all the partners at once. A follow-up presentation was scheduled two weeks later in a question-answer discussion format relating to any of the material from the previous lecture. This was an easily manageable and expedient method of delivery for both students and faculty requiring little in training time or maneuvering through technological formatting.

WebCT offered its own advantages in that it contains a palette of tools in one “location” to use. Having an internal email, we were able to link the students of the courses here in Canada to the European students. They were able to discuss course content and respond to each other at their own convenience and develop a further collective mentoring group. The chat room aspect was another feature and although it required more simultaneity, in terms of the format of its usage and learning curve, for students and faculty it provided an additional learning environment. The data repositories allowed participants to post materials and enabled participants to download curriculum and other documents.

A stable and durable impact on the overall project as contributed by Nipissing was the development of a permanent university reviewed and approved course addressing itself directly to the project objectives and given the title, Cultural Production in an International Environment. Initially the principal partners initiating the project saw the university as having a valuable Native Studies Program and a course that focused on Native cultural production in Canada. In addition to their own indigenous populations, European nations are continuing to show a keen interest in the First Nations of Canada and all aspects of their cultural production. This fitted in well with the aims and objectives of the project and in the contribution of an international module component.

Over the length of the project, as we shared curriculum with other partners, it became evident that a lasting result would be to combine the readings and manuals offered by other partners. In addition, as the course is offered through the years it will involve partners old and new and continue to interlink with the technologies we have already experimented with in this initial project. Housing a permanent form of the module helps to ensure that it can continue to be offered and expanded upon by Nipissing and used in a flexible manner with collaborating countries while at the same time being a part of the original common module.

Nipissing University was the principal member in the management of the project technologies, particularly with respect to internet and WebCT learning platform implementation and maintenance. Regular emailing and video conferencing were also utilized. Email use between the partners accounted for the initial correspondence and continued throughout the project on both a one-to one basis and group mailings. Email was simple and convenient and was primarily used for correspondence among faculty, students and administration.

In order to create a live presence, video conferencing technology was used as both the link for the teaching sessions and separate faculty meetings. Polycom Videoconference using ISDN lines at a rate of 128Kbs was the initial choice. A line rate of 128Kbs was selected in order to minimize costs of connecting six different sites. Bridging of the conferences was done in Canada based on the saving in costs. It was found that although the conferencing was successful at this speed the quality was not satisfactory and so the decision was made to increase the line speed to 256Kbs and to change the bridging service to another provider. Line rates at the institutions were not at the same capacity and one site remained at 128Kbs. Images from different sites were at times inconsistent, the audio lacked lip synchronization, images froze on the screen, frame rates were irregular, switching between sites was slow and periodically the system would lock up due to traffic congestion on the network. Internet or IP conferencing has a dependency on network variables that are uncontrollable due to the vast network topologies used for connectivity. A dedicated network between sites across the Atlantic was not available for this project.

Our project utilized multi-point conferencing the majority of time and occurred in three ways. Sites were added “one by one,” as a “continuous presence” or in a “meet and greet” manner. It was found that the one by one initiation interfered with the technical duties required when beginning the call. As sites came on there was much talk that hindered the technical verification process which caused delays. The continuous presence connectivity caused confusion at multiple sites because they were all being displayed on one screen. This made it difficult to identify who was actually speaking. The meet and greet mode became the most expedient because this gave control to the bridge operator who could command attention, turn audios on and off and talk through the technical necessities with the technical staff. This allowed for meetings to be on time and to be controlled for any technical challenges. All conferences when started were voice activated for the switching of full images to occur. A full screen display of the active far end site was used throughout the conference sessions. A fundamental problem when dealing with great distances is in scheduling video conferences. These are “real time” events that force some odd hours in some countries and which can cause some minor difficulties when six institutions are asked to arrange conferences around their work and class schedules.

Use of the internet between locations was based on the learning management or platform system WebCT. It assisted the instructors in designing curricula and offered various web tools. In the variety of pedagogical methodologies employed it was effective as both a collaborative and teaching vehicle. It contained an internal email feature, a chat room, a partners’ page to course outlines and guidelines, and organizer pages to serve as data repositories. Learning platforms are developing second generations of their forms and many learning institutes and corporations across the globe are actively developing such platforms. Ongoing updates and research into their development can only benefit future projects.

Changes in faculty and resource people over the duration of the project meant that new people had to be brought up-to-speed very quickly with respect to the program and more specifically, with the learning curve for effectively using the technology. This slowed the progress of the project at times. Some faculty were focused on dealing with their own piece of the project so having a balanced approach to the overall construct or staying on board with the partners as a group was challenged on occasion.

It was difficult to coordinate such items as “outsource costs” for video conferencing when dealing with six different methods of accounting by non-program staff who were not always fluent in the language used in the project. Some of this was addressed when it was decided to shift to “streaming” the lectures using WebCT. Costs and payment were delayed with the original internet provider because of the method they used for invoicing. Our second provider offered a more comprehensive and quicker billing method which allowed us to process the payments in a more timely manner.

At times it was difficult having students who came for relatively short periods of time to receive university credits. Not all full courses are flexible enough to allow entrance at mid-year. Some exchange students were not prepared for the rigours of standard university essays and assignments. Preparing students beforehand for the academic rigors of exchange and closer screening of potential students can alleviate much of this issue. Universities can be flexible, as we have been in accepting students, but there still remains a level of competency that is nonetheless required in all institutions.

It can be difficult to launch into independent student-directed studies given the disparate nature and unfamiliarity with the cultural intricacies at hand. Without having some modicum of initiation into the content by the instructors there can be a lag or struggle to the learning. Fundamental instruction on the cultures by the faculty who are the purveyors of this type of knowledge in their respective countries was strongly in order. The lecture approach enhanced and simplified the learning. This takes on an added qualitative dimension when it is done in streaming video or direct contact with students.

An important indicator of the success of the project has been in the rising numbers of students wishing to participate in exchanges. Initially we were barely able to fill the agreed numbers but by the end of the project Nipissing was having to limit the intake and in fact had students wishing to go on exchange to some of the partners without financial support offered through the project. Over the course of the project there were numerous newspaper articles and magazine reviews highlighting the visits of exchange students and faculty as well as on the continuing progress of the project itself.

As a result of the linkages and the other permanent aspects of the project, Nipissing University will endeavour to encourage our own students as well as students from other countries to take advantage of the infrastructure we have developed and the academic offerings and support services that have been put into place or have been enhanced as a result of the objectives of this project. Notwithstanding the many challenges inherent in the academic and cultural diversity, from our perspective, all who were involved or touched by this collaboration of European and Canadian partners have fully benefited.

UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI TRENTO
Stefano Bernardini
Marcella Orrú
Oriana Palusci

The aim of the Trento unit of the project was to investigate the potential of the topic Cultural Production in an International Environment, in a University course in Italy, within the context of teaching modules in English at the Faculty of Lettere e Filosofia. The continual relationship with 4 different countries, 6 partners, 5 languages (Dutch, Finnish, English, French, Italian) and different theoretical points of view and disciplines, was quite challenging.

One of the principal objectives was to make students aware of the dynamics and the complexity of multilinguism and multiculturalism inside a project which included teachers and students from both Europe and Canada. Notwithstanding the high percentage of Italians who emigrated to Canada, Canada was an unknown land for the Trento students at the beginning of the project, as Canada is generally underrepresented in the Italian media.

During the project, in which about 200 students were involved, a way of overcoming the language and cultural barriers was to refer not only to written words, but also to images, videos, PowerPoint presentations, the Internet, and photographs. The students who participated were undergraduate third year students, in a new three-year course degree on Languages for Tourism and Business. The classes of the common module were held within the teaching unit of English, and it was worth 10 ECTS for the participating students in Trento as well as for the Trentini who were on exchange at one of the three Canadian locations. The presence of a French Canadian university was felt at the beginning to be a problem (as English was the chosen language of the project and English is a global language), but for the Trento unit it soon resulted in a fruitful collaboration for students and faculty members. The Italian students in Trento, many of whom are bilingual, were able to actively cope with the question of a bilingual country such as Canada.

During the three year period of the project, 9 Trento students went on exchange to one of the Canadian universities (5 to UQAM, 2 toYork, 2 to Nipissing), 11 students were hosted by Trento, 1 Trento faculty member went on exchange and 2 exchange faculty members visited Trento.

A lot of work and discussion were necessary to create the common module, which in the end resulted in the decision to tackle common concepts the six partners agreed on, after exploring the meanings for each unit, in the different disciplines, of the word “culture.” The three interrelated key concepts were memory, identity, and territory, which led to, or included other basic issues such as nation, boundaries, languages, and history.

During the work on their projects, the students were encouraged to use the World Wide Web to gather further information, after reading the available books in the University library, in order to discuss the general topics on WebCT and to “perform” during a live video conference. The teaching period was so different between partners regarding duration, start date of classes, end date of classes, and the credit system that we were obliged to find a common period and a common ground for student discussions. We became aware that the calendars could not, and did not have to coincide; WebCT and the video conferences provided the common ground.

From a didactic point of view, the students were constantly compelled to compare teaching methods and education systems, and then were required to propose a project, putting together the different perspectives and experiences. This was essential especially for the incoming and outgoing exchange students and teachers, as the mobility “inside” the new country’s culture acted as a proof of how to effectively build on differences. Thus the physical classroom in Trento, Rotterdam, Toronto, Montreal...and so on, literally opened up to form a wider “international” classroom containing students and professors from different cultural heritages. This stimulated a deeper reflection on one's own culture in order to transmit it to others, and, in the meantime, to learn about other countries and cultural contexts, by being part of a heterogeneous group of students and professors, with whom to dialogue even if in a
virtual way.

The project made use of a variety of technological tools which enabled us to communicate with the different partners and with the various groups in “real time,” making it possible to eliminate the problems of physical distance with the obvious and tangible advantages in terms of time, budget and objectives. In order to guarantee connection quality and stability we used a videoconference system on a commutated web, which we reached via IP through the University GateKeeper, in turn established on the ISDN available. The synergetic combination of technologies, equipment and competencies present within the Audiovisual/Multimedia System of the Centre, together with the multimedia infrastructure of the Faculty of Humanities of Trento, permitted us to explore a new integration between different technologies, with the final aim of optimising the video conferences within an academic context.

Knowing the deterioration that the video signals suffer during the compression phase of the video conference system, we nevertheless tried to gain a better quality even from an aesthetic point of view, in view of the evolution of the codec with the consequent improvement of the system. Thus we decided to send to the video conference station a generated signal from the elaboration and the composition of
the various video layers produced in the AV Master Control Room, which would substitute the image taken by the camera of the video conference station finally receiving the aspirated improvement. The generation of this system has required the use of complex video equipment as shown in the following illustration.

All the video conference preparatory sessions with the other five partners were held at the AV Conference Room of the Centro Tecnologie Multimediali Presidio I.T.M., while the sessions in which the students were present were held both in the regular lesson classroom, inserted in the “AV Fiber Optic link” which was used as the privileged access point of the videoconference system, and in the Multimedia Laboratory, so that each student present could follow the video conference on an individual computer. During the project, the initial sceptical approach to the validity of video conferences was transformed into a positive response. In the case of employing video conferences for meetings, it meant a way of saving time and money, while “seeing” and interacting with the other partners.

The use of WebCT and video conferences had a great impact on the project. Notwithstanding the initial difficulties to understand how to use WebCT, it proved to be a good tool for sharing information, as well as providing an increasingly updated discussion board for all the participants in the project on both sides of the Atlantic.

Different strategies were involved by the Trento unit to inform students and others about the project:

• Project leaflets were distributed to the students of the Humanities.

• On 4 December 2003, a student workshop was organised within the Conference titled, Tourism as Cultural Production. Here, the students who participated in the common module in the second year of the project presented the papers they prepared during the lessons and for the video conferences.

• Oriana Palusci and Céline Poisson (one of the UQAM professors in the project) presented a paper titled “The Pedagogy of Projects for Students in Mobility: A Way to use Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Experiences," at the Lisbon Conference (December 9, 2003), in Section 8, Cross-cultural and
Cross-educational Training: Preparing your Students for International Study. They discussed the project in the light of "differences" and "convergences" between the six partners from a linguistic and cultural perspective. Examples were given bearing in mind the experiences of the Italian students in Montreal and of the Quebec students in Trento, who moved from one reality to the other with their individual projects (essays concerning tourism/immigration, videotapes, picture books), and a series of problems to overcome.

• Several initiatives were undertaken by the International Office: specific information on the project was provided in the Information Package booklet on the Unitn International website; fliers of the programme and of the project were distributed internally students; the Orienta service and promotion meetings were organised by the University (Fiera orienta) etc , with the Municipality's Informagiovani and similar tools; presentations were provided in International meetings through the booklet on International opportunities and with articles in university magazines such as UNitn and UNitrento; local media were informed of the project by means of information posters and on the University website; and the project was posted on the Unitn International website.

An unexpected achievement was the great number of students (about 200) who chose to actively participate in the project in 2003 and 2004, even if it meant compulsory attendance in the classes (students generally do not attend classes regularly in Italy), the use of new technological tools, and especially group work (seldom present in lessons in the Humanities in Italy). The group work of the students from 2002-03 has become a CD-ROM, available for future students. The group work from 2003-04 has been put together by the students themselves, with the precious help of the technician Anna Pallaver, as a "cultural production" product that can be found on the web at:
http://ctm.lett.unitn.it/eucanada/.

Additionally, the active relationship with the Canadian and European partners has fostered a number of dissertation topics directly linked to the project, which emphasise the linguistic, cultural and national strategies involved in comparing different identities and histories.

A major challenge associated with the project was putting together so many different disciplines in the common module. This was very time consuming. The choice of English as the language of the project meant that some students in the project were using their mother-tongue while others were using a second or foreign language. Finally, the hours spent on the project by all the members of the Trento unit were far beyond the ones put in the initial plan.


UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL
School of Design
Céline Poisson

The Cultural Production in an International Environment project stemmed from a collaboration between six institutions in four different countries: Canada, Finland, Italy, and the Netherlands. The work involved — research, production, and teaching — was done in a context where 1) teaching methodology — workshops, seminars, formal classes, three to five-week intensive courses, courses spread over regular semesters, 2) the purpose of the teachings — production in arts, design, cultural animation, production of critical, analytical, descriptive, etc. texts, 3) the number of students — ranging from five to two hundred, 4) the level of the students, from undergraduate to graduate, 5) and finally the semester calendars, were most of the time very different.

One of the challenges we faced was the establishment of a common structure that would allow the sharing of expertise and the elaboration of coherent common teachings. The topic of Cultural Production in an International Environment was open and rich in possibilities for work. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach to the question was altogether natural; we had at our disposal expertise in tradition studies, in literary and cinematographic studies, in cultural studies, native studies, in the philosophy of culture, in fine arts, in design, in event design, in cultural education for social integration, and in cultural production marketing. The distinctive characteristic of the teachings at the UQAM School of Design is openness to interdisciplinary approaches (as is not the case with strictly professional schools) and this project provided exchanges between different bodies of knowledge and perspectives on design as a cultural activity, as well as a discovery of other perspectives on culture, of other cultural activities and, of course, other cultures.

One of the original mandates of the project was to produce a “common” module of teachings on cultural production. Our interpretation of what was implied by “common” varied during the course of the project; we noticed three orientations in the development of those teachings, referred to here as the “collage course,” the “transformed course,” and the “new course.”

First, we thought we would be able to build a course where each institution would be responsible for its own part, but that idea soon became impossible to manage; it was necessary that the course could be taken at a precise time and place. We could have had access to remote teaching tools, but there was a risk that our lack of experience would compromise the quality of the teachings. Moreover, the “transformed course” implied that each institution would use existing courses, which means that we would start from courses already offered and give them a new dimension through collaboration with the new partners. At UQAM, we thought it would be best to develop an entirely new course using the expertise of our partners in an appropriate portion of the course’s content, and through more traditional channels such as the exchange of literature and references.

In all three cases, one aspect could remain problematic, and it did: the language issue. In 2003, in the context of a determination to pursue the development of international collaborations, UQAM adopted a clear policy: the only teaching language is French, while the learning of other languages — English, but also Spanish and Portuguese (with openness toward Latin American countries in mind) —is encouraged. For practical purposes, the other partners decided to adopt English as the working language of the project, but English could not be at UQAM the teaching language of the common module. Knowing that the project proposed instruction in other languages (Italian, Dutch, and Finnish for Canadian students, and English and French for European students), the problem required a solution. However, learning a language is both long and laborious.

To allow for the flexibility and rigour necessary for the establishment of the project, as early as January 2002 UQAM created a research group named the Cultural Production Research Group with a classroom in the School of Design (DE-4110), a computer, and high-speed internet connection at its disposal. This classroom offered students a workspace, a meeting place, and storage for our growing collection of literature on cultural issues in general, on the respective cultures of the different partners, literary references, etc. The group was composed of graduate students from event design and the Ph.D. in semiology, hired on a contract basis (a portion of the grant was thus used as a research grant). The group met for three-hour seminars, approximately every week, until May 2003. That context could also be one for video conferencing with our partners. Each member of the group was given a specific task — bibliographical research, French to English translation, and project development in design creation. UQAM students chosen for summer training classes abroad were added to the number of the core group. Finally, this flexible structure welcomed students from partner institutions. It should be noted that neither students nor teachers were given credits for studies or teaching in connection with this activity.

Thus, during the first semester of the project, we produced at UQAM : (1) a definition of culture, and a structure of three general ideas (culture/tradition, culture/identity, culture/territory) to guide the whole project that was later taken up in essence by all partners, (2) a book of quotations/photographs around the theme culture/memory/ identity, based on literary quotations from Canada/Quebec and photographs by a student, a copy of which was offered to our Finnish partner, and (3) a 20-minute video around the theme “culture/urbanity /multicultural identity” that was offered to our Italian partner. We structured our work around three themes and chose a specific interlocutor for each one among our European partners. Because of their respective expertise and specific interests, the tradition/memory theme was approached by the Finnish and the identity/multiculturalism theme, by Italy. It was necessary to explore the territory/city/culture theme, and the differences between Quebec/Canada and the Netherlands were promising in this regard.

For its second edition (winter 2003), the group, still composed of four students, welcomed four visiting students from Trento. This small number allowed for a particular synergy among members. The visitors each came in with their own personal project to investigate in the spirit of the global project that brought us together. The students from UQAM elaborated both practical work and a bilingual (French/English) anthology of one hundred pages on a synthesis of our work —research, papers delivered in conferences — that we could offer to our partners (we began distributing this document as early as spring 2003 in Word and PDF formats). Activities were interrupted during the winter of 2004 because the professor responsible for the activity was on sabbatical leave.

While we were able to maintain a proper course of development of the project and welcome exchange students to our group, it also was important to send students from UQAM to Europe in the context of the project. Because of calendar issues, we suggested that more of the exchanges take place in May and June, and that both the concerned European teachers and Quebec teachers maintain supervision, so as to facilitate the recognition of credits in the home institution. Eleven UQAM students visited our European partners (the project was able to finance nine of these exchanges). It was required that the work that was to be done in the framework of the exchange be established prior to departure, by formulating a project related to the student’s field and the themes put forth by the project as a whole : culture/tradition, culture/identity, culture/territory.

The collective structure of the contents of the module as presented by UQAM allowed us to develop both a general perspective, that of culture as a language game, and three specific perspectives or work themes to direct our observations and cultural productions in the form of narratives, spaces, images, etc. The objective of the general perspective, culture as a semiotic practice, was to become aware of the multiple uses of the concept of culture. The notion of language game as a condition of possibility of meaning and culture was introduced.

The first of the three specific themes was Culture and Tradition, exploring relationships between tradition and modernism, the importance of memory and history. The objective of this theme was to observe cultural practices linked with tradition, folk culture, memory, heritage, etc. and the production of projects related to this theme. The second theme was Culture and Identity, exploring relationships between the individual and the community. The objective of this theme was to observe cultural practices in connection with the idea of community, society, identity and diversity, differences and resemblances across cultures, multiculturalism, identity claims, etc. and production of projects in line with this theme. The third theme was Culture and Territory, exploring relationships between a place and its boundaries. The objective of this theme was to observe geographical characteristics (fauna, flora, topography), climatic characteristics (cycle of seasons, temperature), territorial scales (whether country, province, region, city, neighbourhood, etc.), different forms of life, whether urban, rural, etc. and production of projects in line with this theme.

In this context, choosing one of the themes above, the students, assisted by one or several teachers, were required to formulate a project rooted in a field and a culture they would “master” that would open up on other fields and cultures. At UQAM, the students became involved in narrative construction projects — books, videos, installations and posters — based on the collection and collage of texts and images, drawing parallels between references and experiences from different cultures, that revealed converging and diverging aspects of the cultures in question. In order to attain a deeper understanding of what cultural production in an international environment can stand for, we produced cultural objects while reflecting upon the three aforementioned themes. In this kind of work, the use of WebCT and video conferences was almost unnecessary; the way the other partners worked with these technologies was not really relevant for us.

As the project, the collaborations and experimentations that took place by way of the Research Group in Cultural Production come to a close, two new courses will be proposed as optional courses to students of the graduate program in event design. These will be inserted in the sequence of the International Design semester that has been offered at the School of Design for more than twenty years. The course will be open to candidates from other programs or universities. The description of the courses follow below:

Design International: events
A variable-contents course on production in event design at the international level that can take the form of a seminar or a workshop. It allows the tackling of issues relevant to research and contemporary practices in event design through a series of themes: cultural identity and multiculturalism, memory, commemoration, tradition, the public space, the urban space, interdisciplinarity, design as language and cultural practice, etc. The course can be offered as a regular course (15 weeks) or in an intensive semester (1 to 2 weeks).

Design International: studies trip
Study of contemporary trends in event design through a trip abroad. The activity enables the observation, evaluation, and production of projects in an international context. It is an intensive course (about 4 weeks) offered during the summer semester.

YORK UNIVERSITY
Faculty of Fine Arts
Norma Sue Fisher-Stitt

In fall 2001, the three-year exchange project titled Cultural Production in an International Environment was approved for funding by the Canada-European Community Program for Cooperation in Higher Education, a program that is supported through Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC). The three Canadian project partners were Nipissing University in North Bay, Ontario; UQAM in Montreal, Quebec; and York University in Toronto, Ontario. The three European partners were Humanities Polytechnic (HUMAK) in Finland, Hogeschool Rotterdam in Holland, and the University of Trento in Italy. Throughout this report, the term EU-Canada project will be used to describe the Cultural Production in an International Environment project.

Over the three-year duration of funding the partners developed a new course, sent and hosted students on exchange, and sent and hosted faculty on exchange. Over the course of the project, a total of 39 York students participated in the common module course; 2 York Design students were hired; 8 York students went on exchange;10 exchange students were hosted by York; 3 York faculty members went on exchange; and 6 exchange faculty visited York.

The project's primary aim was to explore the concepts of culture and cultural production in an international environment. To achieve this goal, the partners developed a common 6 credit/10 ECTS course titled Cultural Production in an International Environment, and arranged for student and faculty exchanges. The EU-Canada project was welcomed within the context of York University's commitment to internationalisation and to the development of new institutional connections. For York students taking the course or going abroad on exchange, the objective was that they would have the opportunity to reflect on their own perceptions of self, others, and national identities as projected through culture and cultural production.

The Canadians and the Europeans each had a lead institution (UQAM and HUMAK
respectively), but in many ways the project ran as a group of equal partners with partners assuming responsibility for specific tasks according to their strengths. HUMAK personnel chaired the sessions held in conjunction with the International Project Directors' meetings. Nipissing provided the server, the learning platform (WebCT), and technical assistance for first mounting a partner discussion area on WebCT titled Collaborative Planning and then for mounting the common course. York, with its Fine Arts sensibilities and access to Department of Design students, designed the WebCT course site. UQAM students designed the project brochure as well as several project posters. UQAM, HUMAK and York all hosted partner meetings. Partners alternated the responsibility of chairing the video conference meetings, with agendas being set in advance with feedback from everyone. Electronic communications were conducted via WebCT as well as through individual email addresses. This presented some problems, with partners often electing to communicate with one another via email instead of developing the habit of checking the WebCT site as regularly as they might have.

Each partner in this EU-Canada project offered a unique area of curricular strength. At our first meeting in December 2001, it quickly became apparent that planning a common module was going to be a very complex task. Several disciplines, pedagogical approaches and student levels were represented by the six partners. At the conclusion of three days of discussions and debates, we decided to begin the process of module building by working toward a jointly constructed, broad definition of culture. This was to be done while simultaneously familiarizing ourselves with the capabilities of WebCT, with each partner mounting their definitions/ideas on the WebCT discussion board. This task provided understanding of ways in which WebCT can be employed. It also mapped the philosophical and content foundations for the common module.

Our plan acknowledged the time it would take to develop the common course. We had one year in which to design the course, with January 2003 targeted as the first start date. Our initial plan was to create one large common module consisting of smaller modules contributed by each of the six partners. This was a laudable goal but in the end, it was not fully achieved. Instead, each partner developed their own module that was supplemented by lectures/materials from the modules created by other partners. Different term dates were a factor, making it impossible for all the partners to begin the common module simultaneously. This meant that students at each site were at a different stage in the course outline and exploring different themes/issues at any one point in time.

Still, in the first planning year we worked toward our initial goal and most of our energies were directed toward designing and mounting a common course. At York, the faculty member who was assigned to teach the course developed the York module for third-year undergraduate students and then had the course approved through the proper academic channels. The York module focused on Cultural Production in a Multicultural Environment, examining the diversity of Toronto and how the racial/cultural diversity of this city influences, and is explored by, Toronto artists. For all partners, the Cultural Production course was required of students participating in the exchange. The course was additionally populated by non-mobile students at each site, thus extending the benefits of the EU-Canada project beyond those who physically went abroad. The video conferences were particularly popular with the students. Both those on exchange and the non-mobile students enjoyed the experience of again seeing their classmates; the non-mobile students also enjoyed the opportunity to “meet” the students from other sites with whom they were having WebCT discussions. The York module was offered in a three-hour slot one day per week for twelve weeks. Many weeks, the videoconferences added another hour to class, plus the students and course director frequently continued their discussions beyond the set class meeting time by going to lunch immediately after class. Students enrolled in the course also were required to extend their class participation by posting and answering questions on WebCT.

By the end of the first year of planning, it became clear that not all the partners would have their modules prepared in time for the York 2003 winter term start date of early January. Out of necessity, the York course director made the decision to focus primarily on the York module. The other modules were included by allowing the students to select two project topics from the materials provided by the other partners. This meant a 50:25:25 split instead of the initially envisioned 6-way split. York was at a disadvantage, being the first partner to begin the course. For the first three weeks, York students had no one outside their own class with whom to communicate on WebCT. Fortunately, Rotterdam began their term in late January. In year one, from the York perspective, Rotterdam was the most consistent and visible partner. Our students communicated regularly via WebCT and there were numerous video conferences with students sharing their work and having discussions. Once Trento (in mid-February) and HUMAK (in March) began their terms, there were additional video conferences and student discussions. Deciding on a common teaching day, Tuesday, facilitated the scheduling of video conferences. Still, to make a common module truly common, it is vital for there to be common term dates. The Canadian partners had the potential to share the same start dates; the European partners had varying start dates as well as different term lengths (e.g., the York term is 12 weeks;
HUMAK offers its modules in 5 week cycles). Technological tools such as WebCT help to address some of the challenges faced by different time zones and term dates, but it is not the sole answer. In the final year of the project and the second round of the common module, HUMAK began its offering of the course earlier, meaning that for a portion of the York term, students from York, Rotterdam, Trento and HUMAK were all taking the course simultaneously. This improved the experience for everyone.

In contrast to the complexity of organising the common module, the planning for faculty and student exchanges was relatively simple. Recognising the time and effort involved in planning the course, the exchanges in year two of the project (2003) were arranged partner to partner. York's partner was Rotterdam. Two Rotterdam faculty members visited York, one in the fall term prior to the arrival of the first exchange students, and one in the winter term. The York professor who was the course director for the common module visited Rotterdam in spring 2003, after the York module was finished. In the winter 2003 term, three Rotterdam students attended York and four York students went on exchange to Rotterdam.

In the project's final year, the exchange options expanded to include all the partners. Seven students from Europe attended York in 2004: two from Rotterdam, two from Trento, and three from HUMAK. York sent four students to Europe: two to HUMAK and two to Rotterdam. Disappointingly, no York student went to Trento during the course of this project despite the fact that there are many York students who speak and study Italian. Four faculty members came to York on exchange in 2004: two from Rotterdam in January and two from HUMAK in February. The York course director for the common module (a different faculty member taught the course the second year) visited Trento in March 2004 and the York project leader combined a faculty exchange to HUMAK with the project meeting in Finland in fall 2003.

Throughout the exchange process, York International provided outstanding support. York students were informed of the EU-Canada project in York International information sessions as well as through specially prepared flyers. All applicants for the exchange were interviewed by a team consisting of York International staff and York's EU-Canada project leader. Those accepted for the exchange attended pre-departure and post-return sessions. During their time abroad, York International remained in email contact with the students, assisting them with any problems that arose. York International also provided the incoming exchange students with ongoing services and information. All incoming students were assigned residence accommodation or an apartment on the York campus.

The range of curricular foci found amongst the partners was both a strength and a weakness of the student exchange experience. The York University link into this EU-Canada project was through the Faculty of Fine Arts (FFA), and many FFA students expressed reluctance to forego their artistic training for a term. The European partners in the exchange offered theoretical courses and internship opportunities, but studio experiential learning opportunities in the visual arts, theatre, music and dance were not available within this particular project. The EU-Canada exchange worked very well for FFA Fine Arts Cultural Studies majors, who by definition are interested in pursuing artistic and cultural themes and content in an interdisciplinary fashion.
The Europeans who studied at York were able to pursue a range of courses in and beyond the Faculty of Fine Arts. Within Fine Arts, courses in Theatre, Visual Arts and Film & Video were popular. Outside Fine Arts, courses in Administrative Studies, Psychology, and languages were selected. Students coming to York were able to view the list of courses scheduled to be offered during the term of their exchange through the York University website, and often were able to enrol in courses prior to their arrival, easing some of their curricular concerns.

At York, courses are evaluated by students at the end of each term. The set evaluation is both quantitative and qualitative. In the case of the Cultural Production course at York, the two course directors were asked, and agreed, to share the qualitative results of their evaluations. The student responses to the course were very positive, exemplified by the following comments taken from the course evaluations:

The video conferencing was terrific. [I] never had a class that offered this wonderful opportunity to learn about various cultures around Europe and Canada.

I think this course is really great. It allows one to broaden their knowledge of other foreign cultures and is a great way to meet new people through the exchange program and video conferences. This course also allows the students to critically reflect on how they themselves or others define their identity.
Evaluation of the student exchanges were conducted through York International as well as through discussions with the project leader. Suggestions for changes were seriously considered and implemented when possible. A significant difficulty encountered by York students was the assignment of credits for the courses they took while abroad. York students customarily complete 15 credits each term. The shorter European terms made this number almost impossible to schedule/attain. Based on the first exchange experience, York students in the second exchange year were advised to anticipate a maximum of 12 credits upon their return.

Some York students expressed disappointment over the limited range of courses available to them on exchange. This factor was related not solely to courses being taught at the host site, but also to courses being taught in English. Since York University does not offer language training in Dutch or Finnish, our students had fewer curricular options than they are accustomed to experiencing. As stated earlier, some Fine Arts students opted not to take advantage of this exchange opportunity because they would be unable to pursue their artistic training at the host school. Throughout the EU-Canada project, York faculty and students were in the privileged position of only being required to speak English while at home and abroad, since English was the language selected for the common module. The Europeans on exchange were keen to practice their English, but the experience was more challenging for them.

Faculty exchanges were a vital component of the project. Faculty were able to gather information and materials to be shared with their students later participating in an exchange; non-mobile students and non-mobile faculty were provided with opportunities to meet and learn about the work of professors from abroad. Most visiting faculty gave guest lectures in the Cultural Production course. Some also visited other classes within the Faculty of Fine Arts.

A project of this nature is difficult to evaluate because there are many aspects to consider. Our initial plans for the common module were perhaps too ambitious, they certainly were more difficult to achieve than we had anticipated. Minor changes were made to the course structure in the second year that it was offered, but they did not fully remedy the problems. On the advice of an outside evaluator, we adjusted how the topics/questions were organized on WebCT. The change did not focus the students' responses to the extent we had hoped. In fact, the first year strategy of each partner posting specific questions, with students then responding and posting additional questions of their own, appeared to be more effective. As previously noted, many of the challenges we faced were associated with the course not being offered simultaneously by all the partners. This problem was compounded by the fact that not everyone posted their materials on the WebCT site, partly because of Copyright concerns. In theory, we wanted the students to have access to all the materials produced by all the partners. In practice, this was not achieved. In time, if the course continues to be offered this goal likely can be achieved.

York students and faculty first heard about the EU-Canada project through the brochure prepared by UQAM, supplemented by electronic announcements generated by the York project leader and York International. In May 2003, the Cultural Production in an International Environment WebCT site was featured at York's Teaching with Technology Day. The staff members at York's Instructional Technology Centre were great supporters of the project, eager to test and showcase the capabilities of York's video conference facilities. They referred to the positive experience they had with the EU-Canada project in many discussions with other York faculty contemplating the use of video conferencing in their courses.

Despite the challenges, the Faculty of Fine Arts at York University is very pleased to have been involved in this project. The benefits far outweighed any problems that were experienced. Students had the opportunity to study in new environments; faculty had the opportunity to meet and exchange ideas with new colleagues; and the stage has been set for future collaborations. The project's primary aim, to explore the concepts of culture and cultural production in an international environment, was admirably achieved. All the participants questioned their perceptions of self and others in a positive, supportive environment. A heightened understanding of cultural differences, and respect for those differences, was nurtured.

In a world that is too often torn by conflict, projects like this offer hope for the future. However, universities do not have the resources to assume the full burden of the expenses that accompany such a project. The financial support provided by the governments of Canada and the European Union has been a crucial element in the development and success of this EU-Canada project. All the York participants acknowledge the generosity of the HRDC grant, and wish to express their gratitude for the opportunities provided through the Canada-European Community Program for Cooperation in Higher Education.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this project can be considered to be a success. Students and faculty from the six participating institutions all benefited from the opportunities to learn about one another and also to learn more about how we are perceived. In particular, the concepts of identity, culture, and territory led to lively exchanges that pushed students to consider issues surrounding language, national symbols, and stereotypes. The course itself contributed to the success of the project. It also highlighted one of the project's weaknesses. Similarly, the communications provided by WebCT and video conferences were regarded as a strength of the project by some, but they might have been used more effectively. Prior to this project, many members of the consortium had not previously employed these technologies in their teaching. The comfort level now is far greater than when we began. We have learned from our experiences, and we would now approach some aspects of the project differently.

The decision to mount a common course module was commendable, but we were unable to fully attain this goal within the one year of preparation that was available. Given the diverse student levels and programs represented by the partners, it is surprising that we were able to share as much material as we did. If a common module is to be one of the goals of a project, significant partner homogeneity (or more time committed to advance planning) is recommended. When partners share the same student level or discipline area, a course already offered by one institution can be offered to students from another school. Another possibility is for two or more partners to team teach a course, each contributing a segment. In our case, we decided to create a new hybrid course (not previously offered by any partner) to which everyone would contribute a segment. Aside from pedagogical challenges, the creation of a new course presented administrative challenges. Large institutions like UQAM and York University have lengthy and complex procedures in place for the approval of new courses. Smaller institutions seem to be more flexible. This reality needs to be taken into consideration when a new course attached to a project is being contemplated.

In addition to finalizing the course content, we had to select the mode(s) of delivery. After some discussion, we decided to use WebCT augmented by video conferences. Together, these two resources can very effectively help to erase the distances between far-flung campuses. Written materials and images mounted on WebCT can provide the foundation for questions, discussions and debates pursued through video conferences. The combination of WebCT and video conferences worked well for our project. We learned that clear guidelines for speaking had to be established to fend off chaos. Students wanted to share their thoughts and hear the ideas from students at the other sites. We did not always allow sufficient time for students to have dialogue with one another. Presentations are an excellent beginning, but interactivity via feedback from other students makes for a livelier video conference. Smaller groups make interaction more feasible.

The greatest challenge (and maybe frustration) associated with the video conferences revolved around the time differences. The beginning of the school day in Ontario and Quebec (8:30 am) is the end of the school day in Finland (3:30 pm). Students and faculty have to be willing to accept and work around this reality. In our case, they were. A bigger challenge was presented by the different academic year schedules. Students at one site did not always have the opportunity to video conference with students at every other site because they had not yet begun the course. When a common course is part of a project, the simultaneous participation of all partners is recommended. We selected a standard day and time for all the video conferences, which was helpful although it limited video conferences to once each week. In some cases, additional video conferences might be desirable. Our video conferences ranged from two sites participating to all six participating. The two-site conferences generally allowed more student involvement. The six-site conferences produced a different energy level and made students aware of the scale of the project.

The students who went on exchange during this project benefited enormously. Each school offered a unique environment, opening up a variety of experiences and opportunities. Language preparation and willingness of partners to accommodate those whose language skills are not as strong as native speakers both contribute to the success of a project. Knowing the selection of courses available to them and having the ability to select some courses prior to leaving on exchange makes the experience less stressful for students. In this project, opening up the common module to non-mobile students enabled more people to have an international experience. Some students who participated in the course at their home institution in the first year of the course subsequently went on an exchange the following year. Enthusiastic reports by students returning from the first round of exchanges helped to build interest in the project. Similarly, enthusiastic reports by students who took the common course in the first year helped to build course enrolment in the second year. The popularity of the Cultural Production course means that it will continue to be offered by several of the partners after the conclusion of the project.

The faculty members who participated in this project also benefited in many ways. The international contacts will remain long after the project has finished. Academically, we all gained from learning about one another's areas of interest, research, and teaching. Through the faculty exchanges, we got to present our research to new groups of students, and our own students learned about the research being conducted by international colleagues. During the process of planning a common course, we learned about collaboration, cooperation, and compromise. In the end, we forged new partnerships and made new friends. The financial support that allows projects such as this to exist is money well invested. Without exception, the project participants devoted many hours above their usual teaching or administrative commitments to ensure the success of the venture. Perhaps the greatest testimony to the success of the project is that, despite the hours involved from conception to completion, all of us would do it again. In fact, plans for new international partnerships and exchanges already are underway.

Return to CPIE Final Report Page

Return to CPIE Home Page