Abstract
As a result of increasing internationalisation, the University of Copenhagen established the Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use (CIP) in 2008 as a research, competence development and resource centre. Part of CIP’s remit is to provide language training (mainly in Danish and English) for students and staff at the University. While there has been a lot of focus on teaching and learning through the medium of English, the language needs of administrative staff seem to have been neglected. They are expected to communicate with international students, teachers and researchers who do not necessarily speak the local language. This activity report looks at how CIP has set about meeting these needs by developing specific terminology-based language courses in English for university administrative staff, including HR, finance and study administrative staff. The terminology taught on the courses is tailored to the specific group of participants; however, a basic framework of activities is used as the starting point for all the terminology courses. As participants’ course evaluations have been overwhelmingly positive about the blend of activities, this paper reports on the design of the framework and how it is applied to the courses in practice.
English for office trainees course ES2020 – session 1
Sort the terms task
Sort the phrases in the box into the categories given below (hint: there should be six terms for each category). If you’re not sure of the meaning of a word/phrase, you can check the Danish meaning on www.ordbog.ku.dk.
When you’ve finished, see if you can add a few more words/phrases to one or more categories.
| Accounts | Dean | PDR |
| Admission requirements | Elective course | Pension scheme |
| Associate professor | Exam diploma | Period of notice |
| Budget | Faculty | Receipt |
| Central administration | Grant | Rector |
| Concurrent holidays | Head of department | Salary |
| Credit transfer | Invoice | Syllabus |
| Curriculum | Maternity leave | Travel reimbursement |
| Study administration | Finance | Human resources (HR) | University organisation |
|---|---|---|---|
This exercise is copyright
Pete Westbrook, Academic Language Consultant
at the Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use.
English for study administrative staff ES2020 – session 4
Revision puzzle – KEY
Five employees at the University of Copenhagen have five different job titles . They work in five neighbouring offices along the same corridor in the same building, even though each employee is attached to a different Faculty . Each employee is currently working on a different task and also has made some kind of error that they need to sort out. Two of five employees are involved in a case of breach of contract. Referring to the pieces of information below, fill in the office plan and work out which two employees:
The employee in the middle office has accidently used the wrong abbreviation for the University of Copenhagen in an email.
The Exam Secretary has the right-hand office.
The Programme Secretary works in the office immediately between the Dean and the Exam Secretary.
By mistake, the Exam Secretary has assigned the wrong thesis supervisor to a master’s student.
The employee who is currently checking that there is an external examiner for the upcoming oral exams and has the left-hand office works next door to the Head of Department.
The Programme Secretary has forgotten to extend a deadline for applications from international students.
The Exam Secretary is currently processing pre-approval and credit transfer applications.
The Dean, who is currently working on the faculty’s retention strategy, works for the Health Faculty.
The Academic Officer works in the next office to the employee who works for the Science Faculty.
The Head of Department works in the office next to the employee who works for the Law Faculty.
The employee who is organising the orientation programme for the spring semester works for the Social Sciences Faculty.
It has just occurred to the employee currently checking a medical certificate to allow a dispensation for a fourth exam attempt that she has forgotten to follow up a written complaint about a grade given to a student.
One of the two employees involved in a case of breach of contract has mixed up the syllabus and the curriculum for the bachelor’s programme. Who is it?
One of the two employees involved in a case of breach of contract works for the Faculty of Humanities. Who is it?
| (Left hand office) | (Middle office) | (Right hand office) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Job title | Academic officer | Head of department | Dean | Programme secretary | Exam secretary |
| Current task | Checking that there is an external examiner for the upcoming oral exams | Checking a medical certificate to allow a dispensation for a fourth exam attempt | Working on the faculty’s retention strategy | Organising the orientation programme for the spring semester | Processing pre-approval and credit transfer applications |
| Error | Has mixed up the syllabus and the curriculum for the bachelor programme | Has forgotten to follow up a written complaint about a grade given to a student | Has used the wrong abbreviation for the University of Copenhagen in an email. | Has forgotten to extend a deadline for applications from international students | Has assigned the wrong thesis supervisor to a master’s student |
| Faculty | Law | Science | Health | Social sciences | Humanites |
-
The Academic Officer and the Exam Secretary are involved in a case of breach of contract at the moment.
This exercise is copyright
Pete Westbrook, Academic Language Consultant
at the Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use.
References
Haastrup, Kirsten & Birgit Henriksen. 2000. Vocabulary acquisition: Acquiring depth of knowledge through network building. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(2). 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2000.tb00149.x.Search in Google Scholar
Krashen, Stephen. 1989. We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal 73(4). 440–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x.Search in Google Scholar
Long, Michael. 1983. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4(2). 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126.Search in Google Scholar
McKenzie, Ian. 2002. Financial English. Boston: Thomsen Heinle.Search in Google Scholar
Nation, Paul. 1989. Improving speaking fluency. System 17(3). 377–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251x(89)90010-9.Search in Google Scholar
Swain, Merrill. 1993. The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review 50(1). 158–164. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.50.1.158.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
