• A
  • A
  • A
  • АБB
  • АБB
  • АБB
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
  • А
Обычная версия сайта
2021/2022

Английский язык для специальных целей. Урбанистика - 3

Статус: Факультатив
Когда читается: 1-3 модуль
Охват аудитории: для всех кампусов НИУ ВШЭ
Преподаватели: Пелевина Ирина Анатольевна, Ривлина Александра Абрамовна
Язык: английский
Кредиты: 3
Контактные часы: 52

Course Syllabus

Abstract

The discipline refers to the variable educational tracks offered to students of the curricula for bachelor's while mastering the optional course of English in accordance with the Concept of Development of English-language Communicative Competence of HSE Students. The course is designed for further development of the two-part course for the first-year students: “English for Specific Purposes. Urban Planning – 1, 2” and at the same time it may be viewed as an independent course which introduces students to professional and business communication and develops students’ language skills for interacting in general business and professional settings, specifically in the field of urban planning. The material used in the course contains a certain number of authentic texts/videos/tracks on technology, sustainable development and historical background, modern trends and issues which urban planning focuses on. Thus, the course motivates students to further develop their range of socially and professionally applicable language. In particular, a special emphasis is placed on building advanced professional vocabulary through reading authentic texts on the theory and practices of urban planning and listening to expert talks. The course allows for the personalization of the learning experience with a structured approach that gives the flexibility to focus on specific needs and learning outcomes using more advanced criteria of assessment.
Learning Objectives

Learning Objectives

  • To acquire vocabulary skills (general academic and professional vocabulary in the field of urban planning)
  • To master writing skills (text summary writing, review writing, diagram description, essay writing)
  • To master listening skills (listening to professional talks and discussions, Ted talks, note-taking)
  • To master public speaking agility skills through presentations and discussions on urban planning topics
  • To develop reading skills (reading different types of texts from various sources in the field of urban planning)
  • To apply the set of skills to the professional subject area, from simple ones to complex, such as informative and persuasive presentation skills (individual/group work)
Expected Learning Outcomes

Expected Learning Outcomes

  • To understand specialised complex longer texts*/articles and reports concerned with contemporary problems (CEFR)
  • To develop systematically an argument giving the reasons for or against a point of view.
  • To be able to check and correct spelling, punctuation and grammar mistakes in long written texts.
  • To be able to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of different options and/or suggested solutions during a discussion. .
  • To conduct a monologue of different types (descriptive/informative/reasoning) on a familiar/unfamiliar topic.
  • To develop an argument giving reasons in support of or against a particular point of view or a suggested solution to a problem in a dialogue/discussion/debate concerning urban issues.
  • To develop the basic skills of diagram description (in particular, graphs with numerical information changing in time or fixed in time).
  • To develop the basic skills of essay writing (in particular, problem and solution essay, cause and effect essay, argumentative essay).
  • To explain information in detail in graphs and charts accompanying presentations.
  • To extract key details from official documents and reports in the field of urban planning.
  • To follow extended speech and complex lines of arguments
  • To identify the main reasons for and against an argument or idea in a discussion delivered in clear standard speech.
  • To make presentations on professional topics, giving reasons in support or against a particular point of view, giving the advantages and disadvantages of various opinions and respond to clearly expressed questions on a presentation they have given.
  • To manage debates on on abstract, complex topics both familiar and unfamiliar topics confirming comprehension, inviting others in, agreeing with or refuting an opinion/a suggestion.
  • To plan, manage and deliver informative and/or persuasive presentations.
  • To summarise, comment on and discuss a wide range of texts of different registers: magazine and newspaper articles, articles in professional journals and urban studies manuals.
  • To understand academic/ professional lectures/presentations which are linguistically complex, to write a list of key points (Note-taking skills development) (e.g.: TED talks, popular videos, interviews and conversations with urban planning specialists, documentaries, professional conference presentations and lectures).
  • To understand dialogues and polylogues on both familiar and unfamiliar topics
  • To understand main points and check comprehension by using contextual clues.
  • To use appropriate outlines to organise ideas.
  • To use basic reading techniques, skimming & scanning to make inferences or predictions about the content of texts/ newspaper and magazine articles
  • To write a review of news articles, reports and surveys, or projects in urban planning, providing clear, well-structured texts, synthesising and evaluating information.
  • To write a review of news articles, reports and surveys, or projects in urban planning.
  • To write a structured text/ report clearly signalling main points and supporting details.
Course Contents

Course Contents

  • Module 1. Urban planning as an interdisciplinary professional field Unit 1.
  • Module 1. Urban planning as an interdisciplinary professional field Unit 2.
  • Module 2. Livable cities and urban competitiveness Unit 3.
  • Module 2. Livable cities and urban competitiveness Unit 4.
  • Module 3. Urban planning projects and policies Unit 5.
  • Module 3. Urban planning projects and policies Unit 6.
Assessment Elements

Assessment Elements

  • non-blocking Written assessment
    REVIEW ASSESSMENT CRITERIA (max 10 points) Recommended word count – 250-300 Task Response (max 3 points) 3 points – the student fully addresses all parts of the task (writes a title and a catchy introduction which identifies the reviewed item, gives a complete and fair description of the item, makes valid recommendations in conclusion); presents a fully developed position in answer to the question with relevant, fully extended and well supported ideas (presents a thorough discussion); 2 points – the student addresses all parts of the task although some parts may be more fully covered than others (writes a title and a relevant introduction, gives a narrow description, makes valid recommendations in conclusion); presents a relevant position although the conclusions may be unclear or repetitive; presents relevant main ideas but some may be inadequately developed/unclear; 1 point – the student responds to the task only in a minimal way or the answer is tangential; the format may be inappropriate: the student does not write a title but writes an introduction, gives a short description of the item, makes invalid recommendations in conclusion; the student presents a position but it is unclear; presents some main ideas but they are difficult to identify and may be repetitive, irrelevant or not well supported; 0 points – the student does not adequately address any part of the task: the student does not write an introduction, presents undetailed arguments, neither presents the personal impression nor the verdict; does not express a clear position; presents few ideas which are largely undeveloped or irrelevant. Coherence and Cohesion (max 2 points) 2 points – the student writes a clearly structured objective review on the item, uses a variety of linking devices which connect the ideas appropriately, organises information in a logical order, uses paragraphing sufficiently; 1 point – the student writes a poorly structured review, uses a limited number of linking devices, does not use paragraphing sufficiently; 0 points – the student does not organise information and ideas logically, fails to use linking devices appropriately or repeats them. Lexical Resource and Register (max 2 points) 2 points – the student uses a wide range of vocabulary specific to this topic without repetitions, makes 1 lexical or spelling mistake, the review is written in the appropriate register; 1 point – the student uses a limited range of vocabulary, fails to use active vocabulary items, makes 2 lexical or spelling mistakes, the student uses the appropriate register; 0 points – the student uses basic vocabulary, makes 3 or more lexical / spelling mistakes, the student uses an inappropriate register. Grammatical Range and Accuracy (max 2 points) 2 points – the student uses a variety of complex grammar structures and makes 1 grammar mistake; 1 point – the student uses basic grammar structures and makes 2 grammar mistakes; 0 points – the student makes numerous grammar mistakes which impede understanding. Level/track specific criteria (max 1 point) 1 point – the student uses the active vocabulary specific to the topic; 0 points – the student does not use the active vocabulary specific to the topic.
  • non-blocking Oral assessment
    DISCUSSION ASSESSMENT CRITERIA (max 10 points) Task Response (max 3 points) 3 points – the student fully addresses all parts of the task: the student presents a fully developed position in answer to the question with relevant, fully extended and well supported ideas; content corresponds to the topic of the discussion; the student takes an active part in the discussion; the student’s contribution makes the discussion more effective; 2 points – the student addresses all parts of the task although some parts may be more fully covered than others: the student presents a relevant position although the conclusions may be unclear or repetitive; content corresponds to the topic of the discussion; the student takes an active part in the discussion, not always hears the thoughts and ideas of other students, sometimes dominates the discussion; 1 point – the student responds to the task only in a minimal way or the answer is tangential: presents some ideas but they may be repetitive, irrelevant or not well supported (attitude is not expressed, and/or the arguments are not fully developed or extended); content is partially relevant to the topic; the student does not take an active part in the discussion, rarely shares ideas; 0 points – the student does not adequately address any part of the task; the student is rather passive, does not share any ideas, does not express a clear position; the student presents few ideas, which are largely undeveloped or irrelevant. Coherence and Cohesion (max 2 points) 2 points – the student applies logic when organising ideas, effectively uses a wide range of cohesive devices, introductory constructions, makes the points clearly but briefly, encourages others to speak by inviting them to give their opinions; 1 point – the student applies logic when organising ideas, but there might be an occasional breach in logic, cohesive devices are inadequate, repetitive, under- or overused; 0 points – the student does not apply logic when organising ideas, there are no linking devices, introductory constructions and/or they are used inappropriately. Lexical Resource and Register (max 2 points) 2 points – the student uses a wide range of appropriate vocabulary attempting to use some advanced lexical items, phrases useful for the discussion development; 1 point – the student uses appropriate but limited vocabulary; phrasal verbs and/or collocations are used inappropriately; 0 points – the student’s vocabulary is too limited to comment on the topic, numerous mistakes impede understanding, active vocabulary is not used or used inappropriately. Grammatical Range and Accuracy (max 2 points) 2 points – the student uses a wide range of grammar structures; 1 point – the student uses basic grammar structures and may make occasional mistakes which do not impede communication; 0 points – the student makes numerous grammar mistakes which impede communication. Fluency, pronunciation (max 1 point) 1 point – the student’s speech is smooth and fluent; there might be some minor pronunciation mistakes but they don’t impede communication; intonation is appropriate; all sounds are articulated clearly; 0 points – the speech is slow; it takes the student time to find words; he/she fumbles the words and ideas and/or makes numerous pronunciation mistakes which impede communication; intonation is not appropriate; some sounds are articulated indistinctly.
  • non-blocking Independent Work Assessement
    News Article Review ASSESSMENT CRITERIA (max 10 points) Task response: 3-2-1-0 - presents the content of the article clearly by summarizing the main points, with key terms from the article and major review vocabulary used properly; - paraphrases the main ideas from the article (no citations); - includes no irrelevant information; - clearly formulates personal opinion about the content of the article reviewed; - captures the audience’s attention and makes the content of the article understandable; - does not exceed the time limit (7 min.); - asks questions that check factual information in the article and provoke a thoughtful discussion; Coherence and cohesion: 2-1-0 - logically organizes information and ideas, with clear overall progression; - uses a range of cohesive devices and signpost language appropriately; - organizes the discussion after the review presentation by using discussion-eliciting speech formulae; Lexical resource and register: 2-1-0 - presents 5-10 professional and/or advanced vocabulary items from the article, with their proper translation into Russian; - uses a wide range of advanced vocabulary, including collocations and idioms, of appropriate (formal, academic) register; - makes no major lexical mistakes; there are no more than two lexical inaccuracies or ‘slips’, which do not hinder the comprehension of the article review; Grammatical range and accuracy: 2-1-0 - uses a range of grammatical constructions, including complex structures; - makes no major grammatical mistakes; there are no more than two grammatical inaccuracies or ‘slips’, which do not hinder the comprehension of the article review; Level/track specific criteria – delivery: 1-0 - employs the delivery style (intonation, stressing the key words, gestures, eye contact) that adds to the audience’s understanding of the facts and ideas in the article reviewed; - does not read the review; - pronounces the key terms correctly; makes no more than 2 minor pronunciation mistakes
  • non-blocking Final Assessement
    Period of FA: 10 days prior to the fourth module’s session. The interim exam lasts 80 minutes online/offline. Max. score -10. The exam consists of three parts, i.e. Listening, Reading, and Writing which weigh 30%, 30%, and 40% respectively in the total mark for the exam. The actual scores for Listening and Reading are 1 for each fully correct answer. The release of examination papers: during the session. Retaking exams: till the 15th of October 2022. Note: The common mathematical rounding is applied to the student's final score. Retaking a Final Assessment is conducted in accordance with part XVI «Procedures for Retaking Examinations» of the Regulations for Interim and Ongoing Assessments of Students at National Research University Higher School of Economics. The retake is conducted in the same format as the original examination. Retaking exams: till the 15th of October 2022. Comments to the tasks: 1. Listening (L) Listen to the recording ONCE and complete the tasks (1-10). The duration of the recording- up to 7 minutes. The duration of the whole listening section- no more than 10 minutes. 1. Reading (R) Read the text (3000-3500 words), complete the tasks (1-10). Students have no more than 20 minutes to complete the Reading part. 2. Writing (W) Write a review/report. Max. 10 points. Students should write a 250-word review/or a 150-200-word report. Students have 50 minutes to complete the writing part. Assessed in accordance with the criteria given below. Grading formula: L*0,3+R*0,3 +W*0,4 = 10 ● Listening – 30% ● Reading - 30% ● Writing - 40%
Interim Assessment

Interim Assessment

  • 2021/2022 3rd module
    0.2 * Oral assessment + 0.3 * Final Assessement + 0.25 * Written assessment + 0.25 * Independent Work Assessement
Bibliography

Bibliography

Recommended Core Bibliography

  • New headway Academic skills: reading, writing, and study skills: level 3 : student's book, Philpot, S., 2007
  • Open forum 2 : academic listening and speaking, Blackwell, A., 2006
  • Successful writing : proficiency, Evans, V., 2000
  • Презентация научных проектов на английском языке : учеб. пособие для студентов вузов и аспирантов, Кузьменкова, Ю. Б., 2011

Recommended Additional Bibliography

  • Booth, T. (2018). English for Everyone : English Vocabulary Builder (Vol. First American edition). New York, New York: DK. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsebk&AN=1636939
  • Dynamic presentations, Powell, M., 2010
  • Key concepts in urban studies, Gottdiener, M., 2016
  • New headway Academic skills: reading, writing, and study skills: level 3 : teacher's guide, Philpot, S., 2007
  • Successful writing for qualitative researchers, Woods, P., 2003
  • The Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning / Ed. by Randall Crane and Rachel Weber. – Oxford, et al.: Oxford University Press, 2012. – ISBN 978-0-19-537499-5. – Режим доступа: http://proxylibrary.hse.ru:2089/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195374995.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195374995
  • Wayne C. Booth et al. The Craft of Research (4th ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2016.
  • Презентация научных проектов на английском языке. Книга для преподавателя : учеб. пособие для студентов вузов и аспирантов, Кузьменкова, Ю. Б., 2012