0x010088F6312065A70A44B630A6848498EAD80093CFEAFE161DC94D83C7C5C9A5A748B8

The course design and content was similar to previous years and covered an introduction to English grammar and academic writing. The teaching for the course ran for 12 weeks and included 3 lectures on campus, 9 video lectures, 6 seminars, 4 obligatory assignments, and a new addition of 'contact groups' (students were assigned to a group consisting of 10 students and a course instructor and were encouraged to meet regularly to work through exercises or discuss course material). Six teaching assistants, one vit.ass. and a Lektor II were involved in teaching this course in addition to the course coordinator. This required a lot of coordination, but meant that we had a lot of instructors to contribute valuable ideas to the design and implementation of the course. The on-campus lectures were scheduled at the beginning, middle and end of the course, and were designed to cover practical information about the course (structure, expectations, information about the exam) as well as providing students with an opportunity to ask questions in person to the course coordinator. In the first lecture, time was allocated for students to meet the instructor and other members of their contact group and set up a schedule for meeting. Overall, the live lectures seemed to have been well received, although attendance may have been impacted by the scheduling of the lectures at 8:15 on Friday mornings. Students who attended participated actively in discussions and exercises on Mentimeter. Due to a staff shortage, 9 of the lectures were delivered using the video lectures recorded for previous iterations of the course. This was met with mixed feedback from students, as indicated in the course evaluation survey (attached). Some students felt that they were missing out on 'being taught' the material in lectures and found it difficult to learn via videos. However, others appreciated that they could pause the videos and re-watch them when they came across challenging topics. When asked whether they thought that live or pre-recorded lectures were better for this course, 25% of respondents to the course evaluation survey said that video lectures were better suited for this course, 50% said that live lectures would be better, and 25% said they had no particular preference. Seminars seemed to run well. This year there were two instructors present for every seminar - a seminar leader (vit. ass. or Lektor II) and a teaching assistant. As usual for this course (and many others), attendance varied throughout the semester and was typically at around 50%. Students who attended seminars reported finding them very helpful for understanding the course material and working on practice exercises. The teaching team reported that having two people to help students was very beneficial since the seminars involve a lot of activities and it was helpful to have enough time to answer students' questions. According to the evaluation survey and feedback via instructors, several students would have like to have even more seminars so that all of the course material could be covered in seminars. This year, lektor students (who had English as their primary subject) were assigned to two seminar groups which were taught by the staff member in the Lektor II position. Although there is not a lot of room to include lektor-specific information in this course in addition to the core course content, the Lektor II was able to offer insights from experience with teaching at an upper secondary school, including working with authentic student-written texts and giving examples of how the course content is relevant to the teaching profession. Students seemed to receive this positively and took advantage of the opportunity to ask questions after class about teaching as well. The contact groups were a new experimental addition to the course this year. Students were assigned to a contact group consisting of 10 students and an instructor. The goal of the contact groups was to provide a low-threshold situation to ask questions and get help with assignments and understanding the course material, as well as providing opportunities for students to get to know each other and work together. Similar to seminars, attendance at contact group meetings was not high, even though instructors sent emails to remind and encourage students to attend the sessions. Those who did attend were very positive about the experience and appeared to really benefit from the small group teaching situation and opportunity to ask questions. Students were encouraged to use the contact groups to practice and get feedback on their oral presentations and essay assignments, and those who took advantage of this opportunity seemed to benefit from it. As well as having an opportunity to meet other students and get help with the course in contact group meetings, having a designated contact person for students was very beneficial in enabling students to ask questions to instructors by email. This probably helped to reduce the workload for the course coordinator. Given the variable attendance and commitment level of students, it is recommended that group size be increased to at least 15 students if contact groups are to be a part of the course in future, just so that there is a greater chance of a reasonable number of students showing up for any given session. Another suggestion would be to get students to sign up for a contact group scheduled at a particular time, since the flexibility was perceived by some as a lack of structure and it is possible that some students didn't perceive contact groups as being one of the core learning activities in the course, so perhaps having a more 'official' schedule would help with this as well as making scheduling of meeting times an easier task. This course had the same number and type of obligatory assignments as previous years, consisting of four online quizzes, one oral presentation, and an academic (persuasive-style) essay. This was perceived by both students and the course coordinator as a lot of assignments for one course, and a lot to keep track of. Since all assignments need to be approved in order for students to take the exam, there is quite a lot of pressure to make sure that everyone meets all of the deadlines. This year, students were given 'recommended deadlines' for assignments on the course schedule (a few days before the actual deadline) to help them manage their time, and some students reported finding this helpful. It may also have reduced the need for extensions, as the course coordinator received few requests for extensions on assignments. Students reported finding the back-to-back quizzes to be a bit overwhelming at times, although they also reported that the quizzes were one of the aspects of the course that they felt they learned the most from. Having several quizzes throughout the semester ensured that students were motivated to start engaging with the course material early in the semester and ensured that they studied all topics covered by the quizzes. Potentially the number of quizzes could be reduced in future, but it is worth considering including at least one quiz early in the semester to ensure that students are motivated to take an active role in studying for the course since the first few weeks of content provide an important foundation for the rest of the semester. The oral presentations were run in person this year in groups of up to five students and one instructor. Topics for oral presentations were all based on course material and involved explaining a concept covered in the course and illustrating it using examples from at least one of the three provided texts. An optional additional activity for lektor students was to explain the concepts as they would teach them to a student in upper secondary school, in addition to using the terminology from the course. One of the texts for analysis was an authentic student text written by a pupil in upper secondary school, so the students could identify instances where the pupil's writing differed from standard written English. The oral presentation assignment appears to be perceived as a stressful situation for students beforehand, but feedback at the end of semester indicated that they appreciated the opportunity to prepare for a topic in-depth in order to present it to their fellow students. Presentation sessions were designed so that different topics were covered in the same session and students signed up for a topic when they signed up for a presentation slot. This ensured that they were able to hear presentations from fellow students on different topics, and they reported finding this to be a good opportunity to learn about the other topics. The academic essay assignment was run similar to previous years, with students whose essay was not approved on the first attempt given a week to resubmit the assignment following feedback from instructors. There are typically quite a few assignments not approved in the first round (approx 30-40%), so it was very beneficial to have 7 instructors to work on reading these assignments so that feedback could be given with enough time for students to resubmit and their essays to be evaluated a second time before the deadline for the exam approval list. The textbook used for the course is okay, and is very thoroughly incorporated into other course materials. Although for the most part, it provides clear explanations, both staff and students perceive it as a bit difficult to understand in parts. It may not be the best textbook to introduce new concepts because it includes a lot of detail but lacks some basic explanations of concepts used. Perhaps it works okay in conjunction with lectures that offer an introduction, but it is worth considering whether another textbook would be more helpful for students not already familiar with the concepts. Having said that, the design of the course, and especially the quizzes, is very much based on the existing textbook and replacing it would require rethinking a lot of the resources currently available on Blackboard. The exam was a 4-hour digital school exam consisting of multiple-choice questions, short answer questions, and one question that required a longer answer (200-300 words). Students were informed about the format of the exam in the final lecture and given examples of each of the question types. The aim was that the format of the exam should not be a surprise and we aimed to enable students to demonstrate their understanding of the concepts by answering familiar types of questions using new examples. The grade distribution from the exam was roughly similar to previous years. Overall, despite some initial confusion about some lectures being taught online by someone who was not part of the current teaching staff, the course seemed to run smoothly. It required a lot of time to coordinate the eight additional staff members and 6 assignment deadlines, but feedback at the end of the semester indicated that the majority of students were satisfied with the course and observations from the teaching team indicated that although students found the material challenging, they did find the learning activities and resources for the course to be helpful.

NTNU:TIA:REST

Institutt for språk og litteratur

Department of Language and Literature

Spesifiserte trykte og håndskrevne hjelpemidler tillatt. Ingen kalkulator tillatt.

Engelsk

Mer om vurdering

Eksamen skal i sin helhet besvares på engelsk. Informasjon om hvilke ordbøker som er tillatt brukt under eksamen blir gjort tilgjengelig i pensumlista ved semesterstart. 

Anbefalte forkunnskaper

Engelsk som programfag over to år på studiespesialisering i videregående skole eller tilsvarende.

Forkunnskapskrav

Krever opptak til et av følgende studieprogram: alle humanistiske eller samfunnsvitenskapelige bachelorprogram, årsstudiet i engelsk, lektorprogrammene i språk, historie, geografi, samfunnsfag og kroppsøving og idrettsfag

Faglig innhold

Emnet gir en innføring i grunnleggende strukturer i det engelske språket. Sentrale tema er grunnleggende grammatiske begreper og strukturer, ordtilfang og leksikalske sammenhenger, forskjeller og likheter mellom norsk og engelsk, diskurskompetanse, tekstanalyse, oversettelse og annen tekstproduksjon. Emnet fokuserer også på skriving av akademiske essay. Aspekter ved engelsk språk og språkbruk som har spesiell relevans for norskspråklige studenter, vies særlig oppmerksomhet. Emnet skal gjøre studentene bevisste på og kritiske til språklige valg i forskjellige sammenhenger og bidra til oppøving av språkferdighet i engelsk.

Kursmateriell

Læringsutbytte

KunnskapKandidater som har bestått dette emnet- kan gjenkjenne grunnleggende grammatiske strukturer i engelsk. - kjenner til grunnleggende trekk ved engelskspråklige akademiske essay. FerdigheterKandidater som har bestått dette emnet- kan gjøre rede for språklige avvik i engelskspråklige tekster med bruk av fagspråk.- kan analysere og reflektere over leksikalske, grammatiske og pragmatiske forskjeller mellom engelsk og norsk- kan anvende kunnskap om forskjeller mellom engelsk og norsk i tekstanalyser og oversettelse. Generell kompetanseKandidater som har bestått dette emnet- kan uttrykke seg på korrekt engelsk, både muntlig og skriftlig, i forhold til kontekst.

Læringsformer og aktiviteter

Forelesninger, seminarer og veiledning. Det forutsettes at alle studenter regelmessig bruker gjeldende læringsplattform. Studenter bør forvente at dette emnet på 7,5 studiepoeng tilsvarer omtrent 10 timers arbeid per uke, inkludert undervisningstid. Obligatoriske aktiviteter- 2 innleveringer bestående av skriftlige oppgaver, online quizer, eller en kombinasjon- 1 muntlig presentasjon Godkjente obligatoriske aktiviteter er gyldige i to semester (semesteret godkjenningen gis og påfølgende semester). Alle obligatoriske aktiviteter må avlegges i samme semester.

1 muntlig presentasjon

2 innleveringer bestående av skriftlige oppgaver, online quizer, eller en kombinasjon.

Språkferdighet og grammatikk

Engelsk språk

Film- og videoproduksjon - bachelorstudium

Filmvitenskap - bachelorstudium

Filosofi og etikk - bachelorstudium

Fonetikk - bachelorstudium

Geografi - bachelorstudium

Historie - bachelorstudium

Kulturminneforvaltning - bachelorstudium

Kunsthistorie - bachelorstudium

Lektorutdanning i geografi for trinn 8 − 13 

Lektorutdanning i historie for trinn 8 – 13

Lektorutdanning i kroppsøving og idrettsfag for trinn 8 − 13

Lektorutdanning i samfunnsfag for trinn 8 – 13

Medievitenskap - bachelorstudium

Musikkteknologi - bachelorstudium

Musikkvitenskap - bachelorstudium

Nordisk og litteraturvitenskap - bachelorstudium

Pedagogikk - bachelorstudium

Politisk økonomi - bachelorstudium

Grunnskolelærerutdanning 5-10 med vekt på realfag

Religionsvitenskap - bachelorstudium

Rådgivning og voksnes læring - bachelorstudium

Samfunns- og idrettsvitenskap - bachelorstudium

Samfunnsøkonomi - bachelorstudium

Sosialantropologi - bachelorstudium

Bachelor i sosialt arbeid (sosionom)

Sosiologi - bachelorstudium

Språk og litteratur - bachelorstudium

Statsvitenskap - bachelorstudium

Musikk, utøvende - klassisk - bachelorstudium (4-årig)

Musikk, utøvende - jazz - bachelorstudium (3-årig)

Yrkesfaglærerutdanning - bachelorstudium

Fremmedspråk - bachelorstudium

Bachelor i engelsk

Bachelor i norsk tegnspråk

Europastudier - bachelorstudium

Lektorutdanning i språkfag for trinn 8 – 13

Engelsk - årsstudium

Grunnskolelærerutdanning 1.-7. trinn - masterstudium (5-årig)

Grunnskolelærerutdanning 5.-10. trinn- masterstudium (5-årig)

Grunnskolelærerutdanning 1-7

Grunnskolelærerutdanning 1-7 med vekt på realfag

Grunnskolelærerutdanning 5-10 trinn med matematikk

Grunnskolelærerutdanning 5-10 trinn med norsk

Drama og teater - bachelorstudium

Bachelor i barnevern (barnevernspedagog)

Bachelor i arkiv- og samlingsforvaltning

Arkeologi - bachelorstudium

Afrikastudier - bachelorstudium

Psykologi - bachelorstudium

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(24528)/FieldValuesAsText

Emnerapport ENG1201 H22Generell vurdering av kvaliteten i emnet Learning outcomeCandidates: - are able to recognize basic grammatical structures in the English language. - are able to recognize and explain common language errors and variation in English-language texts using terms and jargon common to the field. - can analyse and reflect upon lexical, grammatical, and pragmatic differences between English and Norwegian - can utilize knowledge of differences between English and Norwegian in text analysis and translation. - are familiar with basic conventions of English academic essay writing. - are able to express themselves in appropriate and correct oral and written English. Report based on:- Feedback from individual students throughout the term- Evaluation questionnaire Course leader's assessment of the course:We have developed a particular course design over the years prior to 2020 to meet as well as possible the twin challenges of a large student number (200+ registered), and varied student backgrounds / previous levels of knowledge. In 2020 and 2021, owing to the corona situation, the course was run mostly digitally, with pre-recorded lectures and seminars mostlly taught online (Zoom or Blackboard Colloborate).  This semester, the 12 lectures were provided in pre-recorded format (powerpoint files with voiceover), while the 6 seminar classes were taught live on campus. The quizzes were run as usual, with 4 obligatory grammar quizzes (OA1) and 7 'practice quizzes', staggered across the term. Oral presentations (OA2) were run as Zoom meetings (individual presentations). Students were offered supervision in 30 min small group sessions for OA3 (essay assignment) ahead of the hand-in date. The exam was a 4h digital school exam. The exam is currently being graded so the overall results are not available at the time of writing.  Our impression has been that the digital version of the course is as successful as the pre-2020 campus-taught version; i.e., course quality is not impaired and learning goals are satisfactorily attained. However, preliminary results from exam grading this time indicate a higher fail rate than in the previous 2 years when the exam was run as a digital home exam (open book), and more in line with the fail rate from 2019 and before when the exam was a regular school exam. Unfortunately, there was no reference group this semester as we were unable to find student volunteers. Instead we ran an online survey (evaluation questionnaire) at the end of semester. In this report, we address selected questions from the online survey. The full survey results are attached. 55 reponded out of a total student group of more than 200; therefore the results should not be taken to be necessarily representative of the whole group. With that proviso, the main finding is that a clear majority of students would prefer the lectures to be taught as regular live classes in a lecture hall. Online survey - specific remarks:(i) Responses on what contributed most to student learning (multiple reponse) were as follows:51% "coursebook &amp; pensum texts", 40% "obligatory assignments"38% "other materials on Blackboard (e.g. practice quizzes, internet resources)"38% "seminars/seminar materials"33% "lectures/lecture notes"1% "other"The numbers for the first 4 items are satisfactory. The lower figure for "lectures/lecture notes" is less satisfactory and possibly reflects issues with the digital format of the lectures, see below. (ii) Only 45% found that the lectures are often or always structured clearly. This figure is also unexpectedly low. It might be partly a reflection of difficulties some students experienced with dealing with the particular format of the lecture recordings (short speech recording on each slide – see below). (iii) The responses to the questions about course academic level and the student's own previous knowledge about the subject are as expected. 44% perceive the level of the course as adequate, while 58% perceive it as being too high (including 7% who perceive it as far too high). 56% describe their level of previous knowledge as adequate, while 42% describe it too low (including 9% who describe it as far too low). (iv) The responses to questions about the seminar classes indicate fairly high attendance (71% indicated that they attended "always" or "often"); and a lower level of preparedness (just over 50% indicated that they were only sometimes, rarely or never "well prepared for seminar classes").The attendance figure is not representative of the whole student group. Attendance at seminar classes never higher than 50% average across all groups and was very low in two of the groups, indeed so low in one case that that group's classes had to be cancelled in the latter part of the semester. (v) Only 27% agree or strongly agree with the assertion "My interest in the subject has been increased through this course", while more than 50% disagree or strongly disagree. While grammar is not known to be a hugely popular subject, these figures indicate that we should be looking for ways to increase student interest and engagement with the subject matter in the course. Lecture format:Regarding the pre-recorded lectures, we received some feedback from individual students about practical disadvantages with the format chosen (powerpoint files with short sound recordings on each slide). These include "You can't adjust volume while listening (the voice recording stops)""You can't take notes on the same device ... (the voice recording stops)""You need to return to the PowerPoint roughly every 15-30 seconds to go to the next slide to press “play” on the audio to continue the lecture. ... it completely breaks the flow"With this in mind, the survey asked: "In the case of pre-recorded lectures, would it be better to have a short speech recording on each slide (like this term), or to have the recorded speech in one long sound file for the whole lecture accompanying the slides?" Slightly more students (44%) would prefer one long sound file than those who prefer a short recording on each slide (40%). The main result from the evaluation questionnaire is that a clear majority of students (67%)  would prefer the lectures in this course to be taught live (physical teaching in a lecture hall), rather than using digital pre-recorded lectures. (18% prefer pre-recorded lectures; 15% have no preference.)  Next year's course leader should take these survey results into account when deciding whether to use a pre-recorded digital lecture format or return to teaching lectures as live campus classes. "Handlingsplan med tiltak og ansvar for oppfølging":- Course leader / section / department: As in previous reports, we strongly recommend that both OA2 and OA3 in this course should be processed by at least four instructors/TAs, to allow for each OA (incl. retakes/resubmissions) to be dealt with in 2-3 weeks. (This year, 3 TAs and 3 other instructors shared this work, and everything went smoothly.)- Department: As in previous reports, we urge the administration to ensure that the exam date is at least 14 days after the final teaching week, to ensure sufficient time for processing of the final written OA (incl. resubmissions) before the 'godkjenningsliste' is due. (This year, the exam date was more than 14 days after close of teaching.)

Forelesninger, seminarer og veiledning. Det forutsettes at alle studenter regelmessig bruker gjeldende læringsplattform.Obligatoriske aktiviteter- 2 innleveringer bestående av skriftlige oppgaver, online quizer, eller en kombinasjon- 1 muntlig presentasjon Godkjente obligatoriske aktiviteter er gyldige i to semester (semesteret godkjenningen gis og påfølgende semester). Alle obligatoriske aktiviteter må avlegges i samme semester.

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(19045)/FieldValuesAsText

EmnerapportGenerell vurdering av kvaliteten i emnet Learning outcomeCandidates: - are able to recognize basic grammatical structures in the English language. - are able to recognize and explain common language errors and variation in English-language texts using terms and jargon common to the field. - can analyse and reflect upon lexical, grammatical, and pragmatic differences between English and Norwegian and utilize these critical observations in text analysis and translation. - are familiar with basic conventions of English academic essay writing. - are able to express themselves in appropriate and correct oral and written English.Report based on:- Feedback from the reference group- Feedback from individual students throughout the term- Exam result(Unfortunately, the reference group's final report was not available at the time of writing.)Course leader's assessment of the course:Owing to the corona situation, we planned the course to that it could be run as an all-digital course as in 2020. The lectures were digital; seminars were planned to be taught on campus where possible (in practice, 3 out of 6 seminars were taught on campus). We believe that the digital version of the course is just as successful as the pre-2020 campus-taught version. Course quality was not impaired and learning goals were satisfactorily attained.We have developed a particular course design over the years prior to 2020 to meet as well as possible the twin challenges of a large student number (200+ registered), and varied student backgrounds / previous levels of knowledge. This semester we maintained the design and transported it to a full digital format. Classes were delivered in a mix of campus classes, live Zoom classes and recorded lectures (powerpoint files with voiceover). Oral presentations (OA2) were run as Zoom meetings (as individual presentations instead of small groups). The quizzes were run as in 2018 and 2019, with 4 obligatory grammar quizzes (OA1) and 7 'practice quizzes', staggered across the term. This solution appears to have worked well overall also for the students. We have received mostly favourable feedback from students (individual conversations and reference group feedback). We made specific adjustments to the schedule this year. (1) In response to a request from the reference group report 2020, the timing of seminar 1 was adjusted so that it followed all of the relevant lectures). (2) To accommodate the lektor students, who could not attend classes in the week in which seminar 1 was scheduled, we replaced the live (Zoom) class with a recording (ppt with voiceover) for seminar 1 (we received a lot of positive feedback on that decision).  The exam was a 4h digital home exam. As in 2020, we met the challenges of the open book format in part by making use of questions sets and the 'pull' function in the MC tasks in Inspera, which ensures that students did not receive identical tasks for the most part. We are satisfied with the outcome (although creating and inputting the exam tasks took considerable time and effort). The overall exam result was encouraging: 60% achieved a C grade or higher, and the failure rate (7%) was distinctly lower than in previous years. "Handlingsplan med tiltak og ansvar for oppfølging":- Course leader / section / department: As in previous reports, we strongly recommend that both OA2 and OA3 in this course should be processed by at least four instructors/TAs, to allow for each OA (incl. retakes/resubmissions) to be dealt with in 2-3 weeks. (This year, 3 TAs and 3 instructors shared the work, and everything went smoothly.)- Department: As in previous reports, we urge the administration to ensure that the exam date is at least 14 days after the final teaching week, to ensure sufficient time for processing of the final written OA (incl. resubmissions) before the 'godkjenningsliste' is due. (This year, the exam date was more than 14 days after close of teaching.)

Alle trykte og håndskrevne hjelpemidler tillatt. Alle kalkulatorer tillatt.

Eksamen skal i sin helhet besvares på engelsk. Informasjon om hvilke ordbøker som er tillatt brukt under eksamen blir gjort tilgjengelig i pensumlista ved semesterstart. 

Forelesninger, seminarer og veiledning. Det forutsettes at alle studenter regelmessig bruker gjeldende læringsplattform.Obligatoriske aktiviteter- 2 innleveringer bestående av skriftlige oppgaver, online quizer, eller en kombinasjon- 1 muntlig presentasjon Godkjente obligatoriske aktiviteter er gyldige i to semester (semesteret godkjenningen gis og påfølgende semester). Alle obligatoriske aktiviteter må avlegges i samme semester.

KunnskapKandidater som har bestått dette emnet- kan gjenkjenne grunnleggende grammatiske strukturer i engelsk. - kjenner til grunnleggende trekk ved engelskspråklige akademiske essay. FerdigheterKandidater som har bestått dette emnet- kan gjøre rede for språklige avvik i engelskspråklige tekster med bruk av fagspråk.- kan analysere og reflektere over leksikalske, grammatiske og pragmatiske forskjeller mellom engelsk og norsk- kan anvende kunnskap om forskjeller mellom engelsk og norsk i tekstanalyser og oversettelse. Generell kompetanseKandidater som har bestått dette emnet- kan uttrykke seg på korrekt engelsk, både muntlig og skriftlig, i forhold til kontekst.

Filosofi - bachelorstudium

Lektorutdanning i geografi - masterstudium (5-årig)

Lektorutdanning i historie - masterstudium (5-årig)

Lektorutdanning i kroppsøving og idrettsfag - masterstudium (5-årig)

Lektorutdanning i samfunnsfag - masterstudium (5-årig)

Musikk, utøvende - bachelorstudium (4-årig)

Musikk, utøvende - bachelorstudium (3-årig)

Lektorutdanning i språkfag - masterstudium (5-årig)

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(13479)/FieldValuesAsText

Learning outcomeCandidates:- are able to recognize basic grammatical structures in the English language.- are able to recognize and explain common language errors and variation in English-language texts using terms and jargon common to the field.- can analyse and reflect upon lexical, grammatical, and pragmatic differences between English and Norwegian and utilize these critical observations in text analysis and translation.- are familiar with basic conventions of English academic essay writing.- are able to express themselves in appropriate and correct oral and written English.Report based on:Reference group reportFeedback from individual students throughout the termExam resultCourse leader's assessment of the course:Owing to the corona situation, all teaching this semester was digital. The switch to an all-digital format created multiple challenges, which we believe we mastered relatively successfully. Overall, my judgement is that the course quality was not impaired and learning goals were satisfactorily attained.We have developed a particular course design over the previous years to meet as well as possible the twin challenges of a large student number (250+ registered), and varied student backgrounds / previous levels of knowledge. This semester we maintained the design and transported it to a full digital format. Classes were delivered in a mix of live Zoom classes and recorded lectures (powerpoint files with voiceover). Oral presentations (OA2) were run as Zoom meetings (as individual presentations instead of small groups). The quizzes were run as in 2018 and 2019, with 4 obligatory grammar quizzes (OA1) and 7 'practice quizzes', staggered across the term.This solution appears to have worked well overall also for the students. We have received mostly favourable feedback from students (individual conversations and reference group report).The exam was run as a 4h digital home exam. The switch to the open book format created new challenges. These were met in part by making use of questions sets and the 'pull' function in the MC tasks in Inspera, which ensures that students did not receive identical tasks for the most part. We are satisfied with the outcome (although creating and inputting the exam tasks took considerable time and effort). The overall exam result was encouraging: 54% achieved a C grade or higher, and the failure rate was comparable with previous years, if slightly lower. "Handlingsplan med tiltak og ansvar for oppfølging":- Course leader / section / department: As in previous reports, we strongly recommend that both OA2 and OA3 in this course should be processed by at least four instructors/TAs, to allow for each OA (incl. retakes/resubmissions) to be dealt with in 2-3 weeks. (This year, 3 TAs and 3 instructors shared the work, and everything went smoothly.)- Department: As in previous reports, we urge the administration to ensure a later exam date for this course – at least 14 days after the final teaching week is desirable, to ensure sufficient time for processing of the final written OA (incl. resubmissions) before the 'godkjenningsliste' is due. (This year, the exam date was more than 14 days after close of teaching, which contributed greatly to the smooth running of the teaching and OAs.)- Course leader: The reference group report raises two issues with the seminars. Firstly, the timing of seminar 1 in particular was not optimal (it preceded one of the relevant lectures). Secondly, the use of the live Zoom class format did not result in as much student input / discussion as we would have liked. Both issues can be improved on in future years.

Eksamen skal i sin helhet besvares på engelsk. Informasjon om hvilke ordbøker som er tillatt brukt under eksamen er tilgjengelig på eksamensoppgaven.

Forelesninger, seminarer og veiledning. Det forutsettes at alle studenter regelmessig bruker gjeldende læringsplattform.

Obligatoriske aktiviteter
- 2 innleveringer bestående av skriftlige oppgaver, online quizer, eller en kombinasjon
- 1 muntlig presentasjon
Godkjente obligatoriske aktiviteter er gyldige i to semester (semesteret godkjenningen gis og påfølgende semester). Alle obligatoriske aktiviteter må avlegges i samme semester.

Kandidater
- kan gjenkjenne grunnleggende grammatiske strukturer i engelsk.
- kan gjøre rede for språklige avvik i engelskspråklige tekster med bruk av fagspråk.
- kan analysere og reflektere over leksikalske, grammatiske og pragmatiske forskjeller mellom engelsk og norsk og anvende dette i tekstanalyser og oversettelse.
- kjenner til grunnleggende trekk ved engelskspråklige akademiske essay.
- kan uttrykke seg på korrekt engelsk, både muntlig og skriftlig, i forhold til kontekst.

Dansevitenskap - bachelorstudium

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(7363)/FieldValuesAsText

Språkferdighet og grammatikk - ENG1201