General requirements

• active participation in seminars, with a maximum of three explained and justified absences;
• completion of all reading assignments;
• a pass mark for a piece of written coursework, submitted by an agreed deadline or for an exam as set by the instructor.

​​​​Literature reviews, papers

Different courses will demand specific tasks and therefore have somewhat different task-specific requirements. For example, literature reviews might be expected to be somewhat shorter and empirical studies somewhat longer than the guidelines below. However, the following framework is the general norm:

Length: assignments will normally be 3,000 to 5,000 words in length (calculating in ‘traditional’ page layout using 12 pt. Times New Roman font and 2.5 cms margins, this is 12-20 double-spaced pages).

Style: the paper should be of publishable quality in its contents, style, formatting, and bibliographic references (APA - see the page on APA guidelines for reference). It should use the language and layout appropriate for communicating with an academic readership. Formatting will be specified by the tutors. Papers are traditionally double spaced but if they are to be submitted electronically, single spaced or 1.5 spaced pages are more reader friendly as more text appears on the screen.

General nature of task:

either

• a critical review of relevant literature, with consideration of the pedagogical or applied linguistic implications;
  ​​​​​OR
• an original empirical investigation or a replication of an empirical investigation, with appropriate content
  OR
•  a test of critical understanding of important concepts in the field.

Criteria for evaluation:

• presentation: the text is to display the language, organisation and layout appropriate for communicating with an academic readership;
• content: the paper is to reflect analytical reading, interpretative understanding and (personal) reflection; where appropriate, a comprehensive and critical review of the literature; an adequate presentation of the theoretical support for the study reported; a clear and logical presentation of the study or proposed study; an adequate critical consideration of the weaknesses and/or implications of the study in question;
• approach: the paper is to show an understanding of one or more approaches to research design, instrumentation, analysis and interpretation.

Scale used and meaning of grades: assignments are marked on the five point scale. Late submissions are only marked 1-4, and the fact that the assignment was submitted late is recorded.

• 5, i.e. ‘Pass with Distinction’ is awarded to papers that provide new insights into the issue under investigation, or that show signs of original and relevant reflection, and which are publishable in terms of the quality of the content (even if more limited in terms of the data, and in length).
• 4, i.e. ‘Good Pass’ is awarded for good academic work.
• 3, i.e. ‘Average Pass’ is awarded for work that meets the criteria, is thorough but lacks the depth of a superior quality.
• 2, i.e. ‘Pass’ is awarded to a paper that meets the criteria stipulated.
• 1, i.e. ‘Fail’ is given to work that is hard for the reader to understand and follow, contains serious inaccuracies, is unclear in argument, unsupported by academic sources, does not cover the topic adequately and is largely irrelevant to the central issues of the topic. Superficial papers without any proper focus are failed.

Works with the smallest instance of plagiarism are failed and prompt the initiation of disciplinary actions.

Deadlines and policy on late submission

Deadlines for the submission of seminar papers are to be negotiated with the course tutor. The deadlines for seminar papers should be set between the last session of the semester and two weeks before the end of the exam period. It is important to bear in mind that the marks have to be entered in Neptun by the end of the examination period. The tutors determine the submission deadlines so that they have enough time to read and mark papers before the marks have to be registered.

If the paper is not submitted by the agreed deadline, no credit (no grade) is granted for the course. Should a participant fail an elective course, they cannot retake the same course.

Extensions:

A short extension of maximum 2 weeks is allowed if negotiated and agreed at least one week before the original deadline. Late submissions that had not been given an extension will be marked 1 to 4. Note: please remember that in order to have a valid mark, even the extended deadline must allow time for the course tutor to assess the paper. A full extension of maximum one semester may be obtained in very exceptional cases (e.g., illness, study-trip abroad, or to rewrite a failed paper) on condition that it is negotiated and agreed with both the course tutor and the Director of Studies of the programme. In this case the course counts as a dropped course and it has to be taken again. In the case of a major impediment, it is advisable to postpone studies rather than apply for extensions. Students may be granted the opportunity to rewrite their assignment for a higher grade, but in such cases the revised work must be submitted by an agreed deadline. A rewritten paper that is still not good enough cannot be rewritten again. Furthermore, rewriting will not be allowed in the case of an extended deadline. This rule also applies to papers submitted with an extended deadline and awarded a mark 1.

Deadlines for staff to return coursework to students with grades and feedback:

Work submitted on time should normally be returned to students within one month after the submission. However, if the deadline is set closer to the end of the exam period, it is the tutor’s responsibility to return the assessed work at least two days before the deadline for registering the marks in Neptun. Staff members are requested to keep in mind that the (extended!) deadline for registering the marks in Neptun is the end of the exam period. Therefore it is important to tailor the deadlines for submissions of course assignments accordingly. Supervisors are requested to aid their students in meeting the requirements and deadlines of the courses they take up.

Requirements for Research Seminars 1-4

A general course description of the Research Seminars (1-4) is provided in Section 1 of the Course Outlines page. The paragraphs below are concerned with a few formalities of these seminars. As in the case of other taught courses, attendance is compulsory and is checked. A maximum of three justified absences is allowed.

Oral presentations

Oral presentations are an important part of the Research Seminars. They provide an opportunity to develop the skills necessary for presenting at professional or academic conferences, workshops or seminars. Thus, when required to make a presentation, course participants are expected to pay attention to the following features:

• Timing: normally 20 to 30 minutes are allowed for the presentation and 10-15 minutes for questioning, unless specified differently by the course tutor. Time limits may vary depending on the task and the number of class participants.
• Structure: the presentation should be clearly and linearly structured following the conventions of academic presentations in English and, if appropriate, the audience should be informed of the organisation of the talk in a preview at the beginning.
• Illustration: the talk should be clearly presented, with appropriate illustration – handouts, power point slides, etc.
• Content: the requirements are set by the tutors.

Presentations will not normally be graded, although feedback will be given by the tutor. However, presentations will be taken into account when the coursework is graded.

Written assignments

The written assignment may be based on the oral presentation, in which case it is expected to meet the requirements for coursework (see 1.2 above) and the criteria for the evaluation will be the same. However, the content of the research seminar paper usually goes beyond the content of the presentation, and it will also be evaluated how well the author has taken account of any criticism or suggestions made during or after the oral presentation.