It seems that more and more people find their way to the course. I dont know exactly how many participants we now have but I had a glance at the attendance list. I was the 42^nd who signed it and there were still maybe 7 students after me. So there must be in total around 50 in the course now. Anyway it is really full. Even the chairs were not enough, we brought some from other rooms and some people were sitting on the table. One remarkable thing I always forgot so far when describing the number of participants. Of those 50 people there are only 5 boys, me one of them. The other 45 are girls!

This time the course was under the motto of judgement-free speaking or unbiased speaking. It means speaking objectively, without transporting attitudes and general things in the language. I will explain later more.

We did not play the introducing game at the beginning of the course instead everybody in the (gigantic) circle should note what he or she (Do I have to write it vice versa now: she or he?) sees or observes in the room. So everybody was silent for maybe ten minutes and wrote something ina notebook. Then we spoke about what everybody had seen. The first thing I noticed was the carpet, probably because it was in the middle of all the students, a green dusty thing with black stains on it. Slantwise right to me I discovered two paper clips on the floor, one in copper and one in blue. Because of the stuffy air my eyes were wandering into direction windows. The only windows which can be opened are in the ceiling because it is a room on the top floor. But they were already opened. Despite no air moved. The small black telly at my right was dusty too. In a dull way I could mirror myself in the screen; surely the picture had been clearer without the dust layer on it.
The people opposite of me where interesting to watch too. In an unmistakable majority they wore blue jeans and had their right leg crossed over the left leg. The pullovers, in contrast, were rather colourful. Somewhere in the left corner of the room there were some students chatting which accompanied a low humming probably of a drill in one of the neighbour houses.
With the time less and less people were writing until the stop-command came from our prof.

The interesting aspectin those observations was that many people saw actually the same (the carpet, the air, the people) but were describing it in a different way. I admit, I tried to be objective and tried to avoid words like the dirty carpet which are too generalising. I could imagine what the exercise was aimed at when the title of the course is judgement-free speaking.
But what I had not thought of was that actually already the choice about what we are going to speak, is a judgement of what we regard as important.

Further we discussed the importance of adjectives and verbs. Unless adjectives are colours, they judge about qualities of the respective noun. Verbs are sometimes very absolute. When for example you want to describe the Spanish people you can say The British soccer fans are a violent or less absolute I have seen a lot of violent British soccer fans. So it is better to avoid general statements and to transform them into personal statements marked by to oneself referring verbs or phrases: In my opinion; To me it seems as; In my experience and so on.

That we could examine those attributive descriptions once again, in the next exercise we gathered to small groups in which one member tells about an intercultural adventure he or she had and the others listen and note when he or she makesa generalizing remark which is not judgement-free.
The girl in my group spoke about her stay in England some weeks ago and the experiences she had with her host family. According to her narration the family has really tried to drive her out: Their house it was not clean; the dishes seemed to be not washed up and for two times she had a fly in her coffee sticking on the ground. In her report she used phrases like It was a typical British welcoming or With every day the served food got less in warmth and quantity- which might have only occurred to her and was not based on facts. Similar things could be heard from others during their evaluation. Single behaviours were projected on a certain group (for example that all people from southern countries talk with their hands and feet).

Now it was time to try judgement-free speaking. We soon found another volunteer in our group. The girl came from Albania and described her friend who once had left her baby at a neighbour (because she wanted to go on a concert) instead of calling a babysitter. The whole situation occurred strange to her because it would be unusual to leave the baby at a neighbour and not to ask somebody professional.
The group agreed that she quite succeeded in avoiding prejudicing or generalizing words.

The last point of the lesson was to collect all the associations on judgement-free speakingand to write them on the blackboard.
So... to summarize, judgement-free speaking has personal feelingsin the foreground. As long as the words Me, Myself and Ioccur (followed by what verb ever) everything is okay. When you use no specific personal pronouns but instead words like always, never, one (=pronoun), typical and so on you generalize things.
The main effects of judgement-free speaking are that it can avoid conflicts and allows others to have their own opinion on something. In contrast, judging speaking can manipulate and impose opinions on others (- and eventually on oneself).

I quite agree with the ideas and have nothing to add. All I doubt is the probability to talk judgement-free at all. In the course I remember a girl who said she absolutely could not speak judgement-free and that her sentences always would include some generalisations. In everyday life I do not spend thoughts on judgement-free speaking because it just needs more concentration. But in risky situations where you can not judge the person opposite and want to avoid improper remarks I would definitely take it into consideration.

Todays seminar title was active listening. Since I got the syllabus last week this active listeningcaught my attention. At first I could not imagine what is meant, I thought that listening has to be passive or else it can not be called listening anymore. Then I got the idea that with activecould be meant that the listener gives a feedback, sends signals which show that he either understands or can not follow and that if necessary he asks back how something is meant but basically lets his conversation partner talk.
I found my assumption confirmed in todays course. -But one after another.

The first thing after welcoming new participants (we must be 60 now in the course!?) was a continuation of the introducing-game. This time I found it quite boring. It was really shuffling along. Only few people could think of new questions and the fascination was not the same as the first time we played it. If from now on we should play it every week then it would be better to know earlier so that we can think of new questions before the course starts.
Well, this time Easter is not far and some of the questions aimed into this direction. My question was how many people are notsearching Easter eggs anymore and except for five (at most!), nobody stood up. This was quite surprising to me; I had expected the result would be higher.

Then we came to the actual topic with a first game. We had to form couples of two. I said next to Beibei, a girl who I know. Then one of the partners should tell about his or her last evening and the other one should only listen. -This all during 5 minutes. It was not quite clear to us if we should change the roles after 2.5 minutes or not. Anyway, we did. Then the task was to compare what the listener has understood, what remained unclear and what was completely different. For me the result, that both of us couldnt repeat what the other said, was absolutely not surprising. It was so loud in the classroom when everybody was talking that literally one couldnt understand ones own word.
When everybody was silent again an evaluation followed. Some people really felt uncomfortable not being able to ask back and even sometimes couldnt follow anymore. There was also a distinction between those couples who had known each other earlier and those who were put together for the first time. While for former it was easier to talk and to listen and to follow the topic, latter felt more uneasy with this game. Either the speaker couldnt continue his topic anymore or didnt want to open himself too much or the listener couldnt understand the speakers plot anymore.

Of course this is logical, I mean. An insider has to explain things much better to an outsider than to an insider who already knows about the places, or relations of protagonists etc.In addition, it needs more narrating skills when speaking to an outsider. So, all in all it is more difficult to explain things to somebody who is new to the issue than to somebody who is familiar with it.

In consequence to our just made experiences we collected ideas what we understand under active listening. A crucial point was feedback through gestures and mimic. To the speaker it gives hold and the feeling of being understood (or misunderstood). But from listener to listener it can be individual.

For the next game there were six volunteers needed who should form 3 couples in the middle of a circle of classmates. The volunteers had to sit opposite of each other and to demonstrate what they have learned about active listening and feedback to those in the circle who observe. I was one of the volunteers. Fortunately my (female)partner agreed to talk and I could do the easier part of listening. She told me about her holidays in France. It was fairly structured and easy to follow. At the point where she didnt know further I asked her some additional questions. My intentionwas to give her some more inspiration that the talk doesnt get stuck but basically let her talk.

Also for this exercise a valuation followed. I admit I was pleased hearing from a fellow student that I did quite well, that I seemed to be interested in the talk and gave an how to say? animatingfeedback. Somebody else made a rather different impression on the observers. He sat leaning back with folded arms in his chair, something which I already knew you should avoid ( closed and open postures).
It was not really new to me how to behave in conversations. I mean as listener you also get a feedback from the speaker, like when he trusts you, feels comfortable, he would continue, if he feels unwell he would end the conversation. Secretly you can even experiment with how people would react to your (the listeners) behaviour. And sometimes you would have a situation like You dont listen to me AT ALL! Especially in relationships you can hear it often I suppose.

The exercises were good for becoming aware of the process of listening. I think in a partner therapy they are quite successful but in a seminar for intercultural communicationway off the track.
In Germany those simulated situations work well, no doubt. Already our parents teach us that we should first listen and then give a comment ifwe have something to say. If we do not, our behaviour is scolded. Especially in talk shows you can watch this phenomenon relatively often that the presenter interrupts and says: Please, Mr. Müller, you should let Mr. Schmidt finish first! or that the interrupted interlocutor says Would you please let me finish!. (On the contrary interruption can be on purpose when the interrupter wants to draw attention on him/her.)

But the same as the German conversation culture do also other conversation cultures exist (what I pointed to already during the course). A girl who was an exchange student in Argentina proved this. She said that people are interrupting each other all the time and finish the sentences and thoughts of the other. If you do not and remain listening (the German way)you are supposed to be impolite and ignorant.
On the other side of the world it is neither the German way of listening. When you have Japan, it is impolite to look somebody in a higher position into his eyes, instead have your head down and dont interrupt.
Speaking of East-Asia, it was unfamiliar to me as a German that people take a hand in front of their mouth when speaking close to someone or on the cell phone. (My assumption: It is probably because they dont want to spit at the listener while talking?)

But anyway, I think that it had been of much more value for the seminar to demonstrate how people talk to each other in other countries. One (sensible) method could be to evaluate (short) video clips and let the students present their experiences with that particular culture.
Much better it would be of course to have somebody of whom the others do not know that he or she acts like someone from another culture. It would be interesting to see how the observers would react and evaluate this different communicative behaviour and where they had problems with.

When being confronted with a foreign culture for the first time the best thing to do is observing. At the beginning nobody would be able to listen actively and to give a proper feedback because of the different conversation cultures. One shouldnt expect that communication is everywhere the same as in Germany. But after learning how a feedback is given in that particular culture a successful active listening would be possible.

Like in all summer semesters there is also this one a seminar called Practical Intercultural Communication. It is the only one offered which gives something practical to the usual theoreticalstudies. The number of participants is limited to 30 but like always the actual amount of students is far beyond. Some sat even on the floor because the chairs were not enough. But because it is restricted to students of the fifth and sixth semesters as well, others had to leave again. Those were not many. But at least from now on there are chairs for everyone.

Our prof is still very young I would say. I knew her from previous lectures and already then found that she is quite nice. The advantage of young professors is that they are still humans. Older professors..., well, to be honest, I am sometimes not sure if I am on the same level with them. But unimportant if I am or not (in matters of knowledge I am probably not!) it kinda inhibits my participation in the courses. Thats why I personally prefer younger docents. So, I think it is going to be quite productive to have her as the docent of the course.

After she introduced herself we, the students, had to introduce ourselves. Therefore we made a big circle with our chairs in front of the tables. Everybody could see everybody. The game was that first the prof and later also the students could ask questions. Everybody corresponding to them had to stand up. At the beginning the questions aimed at regional things, like Who comes from the west of Germany?, Who lives in Halle?, Who has lived abroad? and so on.
Then the conversation drifted into direction studies. We spoke quite some time about this. Who is not satisfied with the intercultural studies? somebody asked. As far as I remember all of us stood up but only two did not know what to use it for afterwards.
Well, it was a good method to get to know each other better I would say. If you hear only the names and the age of people you would forget them anyway within the next 5 seconds. But to get to know how many people for example come originally from Halle and who came especially for the intercultural studies to this university is something interesting. We are all one age-group but so far I have not met all of them. I mean of course I knew all the faces from several courses but the occasion to talk to each other and to get to know all (at once) was something new. I think I will memorize this method to introduce people in a big group. It was really a good idea.

The next thing we did was a brainstorming about intercultural competence. All who wanted to contribute something could write their thoughts on the blackboard. It ended up with what I would summarize as respect for others and reflection about oneself. Well, okay, nothing new. I mean this was also my mental concept for intercultural competence before we wrote this on the blackboard.

The homework given is for each lesson to write a diary in which we reflect about the lesson itself. We shall write what we liked and what we disliked and probably put the seminars content in a personal context. What of those things makes us understand the world better and so on...

Well, I am not a fond diary writer.
And I think the measure is put too high. So far I can not imagine writing 2 pages (handwriting) for every single lesson. The docent said it shall be something personal. But if it shall be personal then there also should be given the freedom to vary the length. Everybody in the course has made different intercultural experiences. -Some more, others less. And everybody has a different style of writing. As for me, I never was one who wrote much in school. (Yea, true, in university the same.) Well, all I can say is that I try to do my best although the contributions to the diary will probably vary.

In this first entry some expectations for the seminar shall be stated and also our personal intercultural competence be judged.
As far as I see the aim of the course is to gain intercultural competence. The course schedule was handed out already. So this is actually already what I expect: to gain intercultural competence and to become more open for intercultural situations.

But I really dont know in how far this is possible at all, in how far can we learn things like we mentioned on the blackboard: tolerance and self-reflection? Either you are capable of those soft skills and can extend them or... Definitely it is not like learning by heart. Thus, I think the course can only teach awareness of intercultural situationsand of potential conflicts which might occur.

All we can do is to simulate intercultural situations and then speak about them. For me it is questionable if you can later apply those trained things in real life. After all, no situation is the same. Thats why I would rather call the seminar theoretical although the title says it would be practical.
I am curious to see what we will learn. And I am curious to see in how far it will be useful for future situations.

When now it comes to describing my own intercultural competence, I really dont know how to answer. I have thought about this question a lot but still can not classify myself between intercultural moron and master of the art. Well, at least I can say that I am none of them both. Although I have not been abroad for longer than two months I have faced several intercultural situations with people of various origins. And while I was sometimes unbiased at the beginning, in the end I didnt know anymore what to think. If you are half-a-protestant-Christian and ever discussed with an Islamic friend about homosexuality, abortion, or merely women you will know what I mean... maybe... maybe not. I admit that sometimes for me certain differences are too big to handle or to find consents in it. I know that you could still, in order not to endanger the friendship, just leave the topic how it is and go on to the next one but to find an honest solution or agreement to this one topic is much harder.

But still it works sometimes. And those moments are the highlights of an intercultural communication when you were able to reduce something to a common denominator. But it depends on bothpartners of the conversation if an intercultural conversation is successful or not. Stubbornness or basic intolerance does not help further of course. But when both are willed to make a step into the direction of the other there can be always found consents.

I discovered a crucial skill for managing those intercultural situations: listening carefully and watching others behaviour. Because when you know the language of the other, the means of communication he/she uses, it is easier to respond with the same means he/she understands. Well, you can generalize this because it is actually not only valid for situations where more than one culture is involved.

To summarize my self-estimation, I try always to be open to people I meet. But I am aware of that sometimes I am biased. Then I try to discuss those prejudices with my innermost and mostly when getting to know each other closer they become invalid.
I always try to bear in mind that people are never the same as culture. When talks to people were not successful one can not assume that the conversation with the culture failed. It is something normal, which also here in Germany does happen, that I can not get along with everybody. But to conclude from a single case to a whole culture is wrong.