Intercultural activity

GENERAL INFORMATION

   Due date: End of Week 2 (before 23:59 local time).

   Feedback date: Within 3–4 days after submission (early Week 3)

   Time: 75 min (main synchronous session) plus asynchronous follow‑up.

   Modality: Synchronous (Zoom) with asynchronous teamwork.

   Delivery form: Short team “problem brief” and forum/Padlet contributions describing the chosen real‑world sargassum case.

   Activity value:

25% of the COIL component grade (together with other continuous activities).

DIDACTIC INFORMATION

   Objective: To help students analyze a real‑world sargassum problem from multiple perspectives (environmental, social, economic) and to develop intercultural awareness by comparing how this issue is experienced in Mexico and the United States

      Resources:
Zoom meeting room with breakout rooms for mixed UAQ–Perimeter teams.

      Shared Google Docs (one per team) to co write the problem brief.

      LMS (e.g., Google Classroom) or Padlet for posting summaries and commenting on other teams’ cases.

      Access to open access articles, news reports and institutional library databases related to sargassum.

   Instructions:

 Before the session, instructors assign students to intercultural teams and share the links to each team’s Google Doc and Padlet/LMS space.

During the 75‑minute Zoom session, each team:

Discusses prior knowledge and local experiences with sargassum (or similar coastal issues).

Selects one real case (e.g., a specific beach or region) where sargassum accumulation is a problem.

Identifies at least three key impacts (environmental, health‑related, economic or social) and notes them in the shared document.

After the session, teams complete a 1–2 page “problem brief” in their Google Doc, including:

Short description of the location and context.

Summary of the main impacts and stakeholders affected.

Initial ideas about why heavy‑metal content in sargassum matters for future sustainable uses.

Each team posts a short summary (5–8 lines) of its case on Padlet/LMS and comments on at least one other team’s case, highlighting similarities/differences between the Mexican and U.S. contexts

   Evaluation criteria:

Completeness of the problem brief (context, impacts, stakeholders and link to heavy‑metal issue clearly described).

Use of sources and evidence (references to at least one reliable source, correctly cited in simple format).

Intercultural perspective (explicit comparison or inclusion of both local contexts in the analysis).

Team collaboration and participation (all members contribute to the shared document and discussion; respectful, inclusive communication).

 Feedback:
Brief oral feedback during the Zoom session as instructors visit breakout rooms and clarify questions.

      Written comments on the team problem brief in Google Docs and/or LMS, focusing on clarity of the problem description and depth of analysis