0x010088F6312065A70A44B630A6848498EAD80093CFEAFE161DC94D83C7C5C9A5A748B8

Masteroppgaveseminaret fulgte i grove trekk oppsettet fra H2022, med noen vesentlige endringer i struktur snarere enn i innhold. Basert på tilbakemeldinger fra studentene H2022 ble flere seminarer slått sammen til et heldagsseminar, slik at førsteårsstudentene ikke trengte å følge mange seminarer utover høsten. Tilbakemeldingene på denne endringen er noe delt. De fleste opplevde at dette funngerte bra, mens andre erfarte dette ble vel intensivt og massivt- og delvis kolliderte med annen undervisning. Det hjalp nok ikke på konsentrasjonen at vi hadde et relativt lite rom til rådighet, med rekordmange studenter. Emneansvarlig sin vurdering er at det likevel kan være hensiktsmessig å beholde heldagssamling et år til før denne strukturen tilbakeføres til et mer tradisjonelt ukentlig opplegg. Et alternativ kan på sikt være å dele opp i to halvdagssamlinger. En annen uvikling har vært knyttet til opprettelsen av alternativt digitalt opplegg, som erstattning for obligatorisk oppmøte dersom noen hadde gode grunner til å ikke møte. Siden det skal være en fordel å delta fysisk på seminarene, har individuell tilbakemelding på disse alternative arbeidskravene vært begrenset.

Vurdering er basert på emneansvarlig sin erfaring og tilbakemelding fra studentene. Studentene fikk selv velge hvorvidt de ville benytte spørresjema eller referansegruppe. Alle ville foretrakk spørreskjema og oppsluttningen var relativt høy (N=19) sammenlignet med H22 (N=2) Basert på tilbakemelding fra studentene virker det som om de fleste gjennomgående har vært fornøyd og fått et godt læringsutbytte. Noen opplever at seminaret har forbedringspotensial. En gjenganger er at noen oppfatter de obligatoriske forbredelser som for omfattende, mens andre sier at disse er nyttige og gjør at man får mer ut av seminarene. En annen gjenganger, er at det av enkelte oppleves som unødvendig overlapp mellom 1 og 2 års studenters deltakelse. Noen 2 års student påpekter derfor at de opplever gjentagelsen/repitisjonen som kjedelig/unødvendig. Årsaken til denne delvise overlappen skyldes at dette innholdet fra instituttet oppfattes som viktig informasjon både for 1 og 2 års studenter. Noen typer informasjon/læring er det greit å gjenta, rett og slett fordi hvor man befinner seg i masterløpet legger viktige føringer på hva en tillegner seg av informasjon. Læringsmiljøet er også viktig og vurderes av alle som svært godt, og det er nyttig at 1 og 2 års studenter har noen få felles faglige møteplasser i løpet av studieløpet. Det virker som tidsfordelingen har fungert bra, og om noe skal oppjusteres er det å bruke noe mer tid på vurderingskriterier, formulering av problemstilling og tilbakemelding på egne skisser. Her har det riktignok vært betydelig variasjon i studentenes egeninnsats. Mens de aller fleste har vært flinke til å gi medstudenter respons og engasjert seg i diskusjonene, er det også noen som i stor grad "meldt seg ut" og i liten grad bidratt med forbredte konstruktive tilbakemeldinger til de andre.

NTNU:TIA:REST

Institutt for sosiologi og statsvitenskap

Department of Sociology and Political Science

Norsk

Mer om vurdering

Den muntlige prøven kan justere karakteren med inntil ett trinn. Alle andre eksamener i masterstudiet må være avlagt før avsluttende masteroppgaveeksamen.

Faglig innhold

Masteroppgaven skal inneholde en vitenskapelig analyse av et tema innenfor medier, kommunikasjon og informasjonsteknologi. Oppgaven skal ha et omfang på 50-55 sider og må ikke overstige 22 000 ord (innholdsfortegnelse, referanseliste og vedlegg kommer utenom).Studenten må delta på obligatoriske masterseminar. Veiledning er en vesentlig komponent i arbeidet med oppgaven. Den sikrer at studenten tilføres de nødvendige kunnskaper og innebærer en nødvendig kontroll med innsamling og behandling av data, samt at dette foregår innenfor de forskningsetiske retningslinjer. Veiledning er derfor en obligatorisk del av studiet for studenter som ønsker å levere en masteroppgave.

Læringsutbytte

Kunnskapsmål - studenten skal:<ul><li>lære hvordan man utfører et selvstendig forskningsarbeid.</li><li>gjennom masteroppgaveseminar og veiledning få innsikt i forskningsprosessens ulike trinn: konstruktiv og kritisk vurdering av andres forskning, forskningsplanlegging, datainnsamling, analyse og formidling.</li></ul>Ferdighetsmål - studenten skal:<ul><li>gjennomføre et selvstendig forskningsarbeid.</li><li>gjennom arbeidet med masteroppgaven tilegne seg ferdigheter som kan nyttes ikke bare i forskningssammenheng, men også f.eks. i informasjons og kommunikasjonsarbeid, journalistikk og annet mediearbeid, utrednings- og evalueringsarbeid, undervisning, m.m.</li></ul>

Læringsformer og aktiviteter

Obligatorisk masteroppgaveseminar og veiledning.Masterseminaret foregår både i høst- og vårsemesteret. Studenter på 2. studieår skal delta i hele masterseminaret. Studenter på 1. studieår skal delta i deler av masterseminaret på høstsemesteret.Tema for masteroppgaven godkjennes av instituttet. Hver masterstudent skal skrive under en masteravtale som blant annet regulerer veiledningsforholdet. Masteravtalen leveres innen 10. januar i vårsemesteret. Oppgaven har tidsfrist og må leveres inn senest 21 uker (inkludert påske) etter at masteravtalen er levert. Innleveringsfristen for oppgaven blir dermed 6. juni i vårsemesteret.

Masteroppgaveseminar og veiledning

Masteroppgave i medier, kommunikasjon og informasjonsteknologi

Medier og kommunikasjon

Medievitenskap

Pedagogikk

Sosiologi

Statsvitenskap

Medier, kommunikasjon og informasjonsteknologi - masterstudium

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(25733)/FieldValuesAsText

Emnet bestå av fem møter hvorav en var en paneldebatt med tidligere MKI-studenter om arbeidslivsrelevans. Emnet foregikk som i fjor. Da både studentene og underviser viste seg fornøyd i fjor ble det ikke foretatt endringer. Gjesteforelesningene om koding av kvalitative data og fremstilling av kvantitative data ble åpnet for førsteårsstudenter som tar MV3010 om våren og kan ha bruk til opplæring i disse metodiske spørsmålene. Men med det nye metodeemnet SVMET3000 kan det antas at det ikke lengre blir nødvendig i framtida.

Læringsutbyttelse av emnet består i å lære hvordan man utfører et selvstendig forskningsarbeid og i å få innsikt i forskningsprosessens ulike trinn. Masterseminaret V23 om våren må ses i sammenhengen med masterseminaret H22. Hovedparten av det foregår i høstsemesteret som forberedelsen av masterskriving. Om våren blir det gjennomført bare noen få møter om spesifikke spørsmål som blir først aktuelt når studentene allerede er i gang med å skrive masteroppgaven (hvordan skriver man en metodedel, koding av kvalitative data, fremstilling av kvantitative data, hvordan skriver man en diskusjonsdel, hvordan gjennomføres muntlig eksamen). Emnet er lagt opp med mye studentaktivitet (f.eks. øvinger, diskusjoner) som har mål til å hjelpe studentene med masterskriving. Studentene setter stor pris på det og deltar aktivt. Siden deltakerne har fullført sin masteroppgave, kan det antas at læringsutbyttet er oppnådd.

Studentevaluering ble gjennomført i programrådet MKI om våren. Tilbakemeldingene både om masterseminaret og om veiledning studentene fikk av sine masterveiledere var godt, studentene var fornøyd med begge. Et forslag som kom fra studentene var at man med vinst kunne ha flere møter i masterseminaret da studentene gir tilbakemelding til hverandre på deres oppgaver under skriveprosessen (medstudentrespons). Her er det som bakgrunnsinformasjon viktig å vite at det var tidligere en del av masterseminaret men studentenes interesse i det var på den tiden veldig lavt. Det kan ha å gjøre med at noen studenter får gruppeveiledning fra sine veileder hvor medstudentrespons er en viktig del. I framtida kan det vurderes å spørre studentene ved første møte om våren om hvor mange har interesse i medstudentrespons og gjennomføre det hvis det finnes en hvis antall som forplikter seg til å delta. Ang. paneldebatt med arbeidslivsrepresentanter var oppmøte dessverre litt lav. Både a. og 2. års studentene ble invitert men mindre en halvparten av dem møtte opp. Det var litt skuffende på bakgrunnen at studentene sterk etterspør arbeidslivsrelevans i studieprogrammet og paneldebatten er et tiltak for å styrke arbeidslivsrelevansen i studieprogrammet. Det kan vurderes å diskutere det med studentene ved første møte om våren og gjøre klar at det kan organiseres en paneldebatt men da forventes det at studentene møter opp.

Masteroppgaven skal inneholde en vitenskapelig analyse av et tema innenfor medier, kommunikasjon og informasjonsteknologi. Oppgaven skal ha et omfang på 50-55 sider og må ikke overstige 22 000 ord (innholdsfortegnelse, referanseliste og vedlegg kommer utenom). Studenten må delta på obligatoriske masterseminar. Veiledning er en vesentlig komponent i arbeidet med oppgaven. Den sikrer at studenten tilføres de nødvendige kunnskaper og innebærer en nødvendig kontroll med innsamling og behandling av data, samt at dette foregår innenfor de forskningsetiske retningslinjer. Veiledning er derfor en obligatorisk del av studiet for studenter som ønsker å levere en masteroppgave.

Obligatorisk masteroppgaveseminar og veiledning. Tema for masteroppgaven godkjennes av instituttet. Hver masterstudent skal skrive under en masteravtale som blant annet regulerer veiledningsforholdet. Masteravtalen leveres innen 10. januar i vårsemesteret. Oppgaven har tidsfrist og må leveres inn senest 21 uker (inkludert påske) etter at masteravtalen er levert. Innleveringsfristen for oppgaven blir dermed 6. juni i vårsemesteret.

Psykologi

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(22913)/FieldValuesAsText

The overall concept was kept since it had turned out to be successful and experienced as useful by the students. Small adjustments include (as described in the report last year) leaving out the meeting with NTNU Karriere again and rather organizing a panel debate with two previous MKI students about their working life and the relevance of the study program to it. The students experienced this panel debate as very useful, so I recommend organizing this again in 2023 (when I will not teach the course).

Overall, my evaluation is very similar to the one last year. Again, I perceived the learning environment in the course as excellent. The students were very active, and both my personal observation and feedback from the students during the course show that the students learnt a lot from the course. Unfortunately, only two students participated in the student evaluation survey despite repeated reminders, so this is far from representative, but both expressed that they feel much better prepared for writing their master theses than before taking the course, and this is exactly what the course aims at. The course consists of interactive meetings plus preparations (e.g., watching videos on the topic we discuss in a meeting; read a bachelor thesis as preparation for an exercise where the students evaluate this thesis to get insights into the evaluation process; conduct individual exercises) and follow-up tasks (e.g., writing a first draft of the concept for the master thesis; providing peer feedback on others' drafts). I have the feeling that many students learn a lot from these exercises. However, not all exercises are mandatory, and my impression is that not too many students actually do the voluntary ones. Nevertheless, I find it important to keep the offer for those who want to take it. Altogether, I don't see need for changes except some small adjustments here and there. There is not any "pensum" in this course, only three recommended books, but it is up to the students if they want to read these. The students don't get any grades in this course, but they must deliver a first, two-page description of their topic ("prosjektskisse") by mid-October in order to stimulate progress in finding a topic for their master thesis and a supervisor. All students had found a supervisor by the beginning of November. Even though only two students participated in the student evaluation survey, I upload it for information. A change that might be considered next time is doing the course evaluation not in the form of a survey but rather as a discussion with the students in one of the meetings (e.g., students collecting feedback in small groups which is then sent to the course leader in an anonymized form). Another change that might be considered is bundling some parts of the seminar (e.g., the panel debate; the experience report of former MKI students on writing a thesis; introduction of staff working in the field of media and communication; how to find a research question) in a one-day or half-day meeting for both 1st and 2nd year students which also can be used for strengthening the social milieu among the students. The rest of the lectures which focus more strongly on the actual work with the master thesis could then only be for the 2nd year students. This might help solving the challenge that the 1st year students sometimes find it difficult to understand why they must participate in the master seminar already in the first semester.

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(20236)/FieldValuesAsText

There were not any measures defined in earlier reports, but nevertheless, I made some adjustments. The last two years, the participation in the meeting where the students received individual feedback on their project descriptions was extremely low (only 3-4 students were interested). I assume that the students in the spring semester are in close contact with their supervisors and have therefore no need for individual feedback in the master seminar anymore. Instead, I organized a panel debate with former MKI students who talked about their working life and the job relevance of what they learnt in the MKI study program. This event was both a reaction to my personal impression that the students feel a high degree of insecurity about their job opportunities and a request for more information about the job relevance of the study program that was raised in the study program evaluation report in 2021. After the very positive feedback from the students, I plan to organize one such panel debate per semester from now on. Another adjustment I made was to organize a guest lecture on how to present quantitative data. This was a reaction to the strongly increased number of quantitative master projects. The rest of the lectures stayed as before since the students had been very satisfied with that. We had, again, one lecture on how to write a methods section, one lecture about how to write the discussion, and one guest lecture about analyzing and presenting qualitative data. For next year, I don't see a need for further large changes in the course in the spring semester.

This has to be seen in connection with the first part of the course in autumn 2021. All lectures include input from the teacher plus a lot of student interactions in order to increase the learning outcomes. The main goal of this course is to prepare the students in the best possible way for writing their master theses. The feedback from the students which I got in personal conversations shows that they have the feeling that they feel well-prepared after having taken the course. Also, the master theses they deliver show that they learn much in this course on how to write a thesis. I experience the learning environment as very good. All MKI students know each other usually quite well, and they are a well-functioning group in which they support one another as good as they can. Moreover, it also plays a role that I as teacher know them quite well. Therefore, the interactions in the lectures work very well. It was very positive that all meetings could take place physically since this is much better for the learning environment in such an interactive course. Since this is the master seminar, it is pre-defined that the assignment the students have to deliver is their master thesis. There is no margin for changing the form of assignment.

Forkunnskapskrav

Alle andre eksamener i masterstudiet må være avlagt før avsluttende masteroppgaveeksamen.

Masteroppgaven skal inneholde en vitenskapelig analyse av et emne innenfor medier, kommunikasjon og informasjonsteknologi.Oppgaven skal normalt ha et omfang på cirka 19 000 ord og må ikke overstige 28 000.  Studenten må delta det obligatoriske masteroppgaveseminaret i masterstudiet høsten 1. semester og 3. semester. Veiledning er en vesentlig komponent i arbeidet med oppgaven. Den sikrer at studenten tilføres de nødvendige kunnskaper og innebærer en nødvendig kontroll med innsamling og behandling av data, samt at dette foregår innenfor de forskningsetiske retningslinjer. Veiledning er derfor obligatorisk del av studiet for de studenter som ønsker å levere en masteroppgave. 

Kunnskapsmål - studenten skal:* ha lært hvordan man utfører et selvstendig forskningsarbeid.* gjennom obligatorisk veiledning få innsikt i forskningsprosessens ulike trinn: konstruktiv og kritisk vurdering av andres forskning, forskningsplanlegging og samarbeid, datainnsamling, analyse og formidling.Ferdighetsmål - studenten skal:* gjennomføre et selvstendig forskningsarbeid.* gjennom arbeidet med masteroppgaven tilegne seg ferdigheter som kan nyttes ikke bare i forskningssammenheng, men også f.eks. i informasjons og kommunikasjonsarbeid, journalistikk og annet mediearbeid, utrednings- og evalueringsarbeid, undervisning, m.m.

Obligatorisk masteroppgaveseminar og individuell veiledning. Vurderingsform er masteroppgaven og en muntlig prøve. Masteroppgaven skrives normalt individuelt, men kan også skrives sammen etter avtale med instituttet. Tema for masteroppgaven godkjennes av instituttet. Studenter på MKI som ønsker å skrive en masteroppgave som bygger videre på arbeidet med praksisrapporten (MV3010), har anledning til dette etter avtale med bedriften. Hver masterstudent skal skrive under en masteravtale som blant annet regulerer veiledningsforholdet. Masteravtalen leveres innen 10. januar i vårsemesteret. Oppgaven har tidsfrist og må leveres inn senest 21 uker (inkludert påske) etter at masteravtalen er levert. Innleveringsfristen for masteroppgaven er 6. juni i vårsemesteret.

Masteroppgave og veiledning

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(17428)/FieldValuesAsText

After the large success of the interactive course concept in autumn 2020, I kept the main concept of a high degree of interactions in the meetings with exercises, group work and discussions in order to stimulate student learning and critical thinking. The main focus of the course was, again, to prepare the students in the best possible way to write their master theses. Stimulating student interaction was easier this year since the course took place physically again (rather than digitally). A new element that I introduced was Padlet which we used in several meetings to collect students' answers to questions or their solutions for group tasks. For example, they were asked to make suggestions on how to research for relevant literature. These strategies were collected on a Padlet which was available to the students also afterwards so that they could take a look at it also later when looking for strategies of literature research. Even though I kept the overarching concept and desired learning outcomes, I made some slight adjustments, following suggestions I received in the student evaluation survey last year. For example, the students had criticized that the course content in the four meetings that were for both the students in the first and second year had been to heavy for the first-year students and that it would be desirable to have meetings only for the first-year students to meet their needs. I therefore changed the order of two meetings and used one third of the first meeting for giving the students from both years time to get to know each other in small groups. In addition, I organized one meeting only for the first-year students with the Senior Executive Officer responsible for the MKI program in order to give them the opportunity to ask questions that came up during the first half of the semester. However, it turned out that the students didn't have many questions, so I will skip that again next year. Another change that I introduced was a presentation by the NTNU career service (NTNU Karriere), aiming at providing the students with better knowledge on the job relevance of their study program and giving them more security into this direction. However, according to student feedback, the students experienced the input at rather generic and not too helpful, so I won't go on with this next time but rather organize a panel debate with former MKI students talking about their everyday work and how far the MKI study program is relevant to their work, in line with a suggestion in the student evaluation survey. A last change I made was that I taught the course in Norwegian for the first time after having learnt the language during the last four years. This was highly appreciated by the students.

Again, I perceived the learning environment in the course as very good. The students were very active, and both my personal observation and the student evaluation survey show that the students learnt a lot from the course. Several of them wrote that they feel much better prepared for writing their master theses than before taking the course, and this is exactly what the course aims at. The course consists of interactive meetings plus preparations (e.g., watching videos on the topic we discuss in a meeting; read a bachelor thesis as preparation for an exercise where the students evaluate this thesis to get insights into the evaluation process; conduct individual exercises) and follow-up tasks (e.g., writing a first draft of the concept for the master thesis; providing peer feedback on others' drafts). I have the feeling that the students conduct most of these exercises and learn a lot from them. Therefore, I don't see much need for large changes next time despite the small adjustments described above. There is not any "pensum" in this course, only three recommended books, but it is up to the students if they want to read these. The students don't get any grades in this course, but there are some mandatory assignments they must deliver during the semester in order to stimulate learning and stimulate progress in finding a topic for their master thesis and a supervisor (e.g. a literature review, using a given scheme; a first version of their "problemstilling"; a "prosjektskisse", using a given scheme).

I will take out the meeting on how to structure a master thesis and what exactly to write in the individual chapters because I observed that the students didn't get much out of this meeting, there was too few interaction, and this is partly repeated in the meetings in the spring semester. I think this meeting can be replaced by a written document with the same information given in the meeting. One thing that was criticized by the students is that they must take this course in addition to the many other courses they take in the autumn. I understand this, but it is not possible to provide the master seminar later because it should prepare the students for their master thesis which they already write in the spring semester. They also criticize that they don't get study points for the master seminar, which is a misunderstanding. In fact, this master seminar is part of the 30 study points they get for their master theses. Obviously, I need to communicate this fact even more clearly than I already do. One comment in the course evaluation was also that the seminar should be provided in a hybrid form to allow for participating in the meetings digitally. However, a hybrid format would destroy the learning atmosphere in this course with a small number of participants which strongly relies on interaction between the students. Therefore, this is not an alternative.

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(14723)/FieldValuesAsText

This was the second part of MV3091 which took place in autumn 2020 with 10 meetings. In the spring semester, there were four meetings with the students this semester which mainly addressed "how to" questions related to their master theses (how to write a methods section, how to code qualitative materials, how to write a discussion). All meetings had to take place digitally because of the pandemic. Nevertheless, I experienced the meetings as very fruitful and of high quality. The meetings were quite interactive, providing the students many opportunities to practice and discuss. Student participation was very good. From the feedback I received from the students, they considered these meetings very helpful.

The main learning outcome is to enable the students to deal better with their master theses and write better theses, so it is highly relevant for the students and updated. This main learning outcome was clearly communicated to the students at the beginning of the autumn semester 2020. At the beginning of each meeting, the learning outcome of the respective meeting was communicated to the students. Focusing on all parts of the research process in social scientific studies (research questions, theory, literature review, method, analysis, results, discussion/interpretation) there is naturally a connection between what the students learn in this course and topics addressed in other courses.

The meetings were a mix of input by the teacher and interactive exercises done by the students (mostly in groups). These exercises aimed at helping the students with using and practicing what they had learnt through the teacher's input. The students actively participated in the course and were highly motivated. Even though the course had to take place digitally, the learning environment was experienced as good by both teacher and students. It might, however, have been even better in a physical setting.

Kunnskapsmål  studenten skal:
- ha lært hvordan man utfører et selvstendig forskningsarbeid.
- gjennom obligatorisk veiledning få innsikt i forskningsprosessens ulike trinn: konstruktiv og kritisk vurdering av andres forskning, forskningsplanlegging og samarbeid, datainnsamling, analyse og formidling.

Ferdighetsmål - studenten skal:
- gjennomføre et selvstendig forskningsarbeid.
- gjennom arbeidet med masteroppgaven tilegne seg ferdigheter som kan nyttes ikke bare i forskningssammenheng, men også f.eks. i informasjons og kommunikasjonsarbeid, journalistikk og annet mediearbeid, utrednings- og evalueringsarbeid, undervisning, m.m.

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(11844)/FieldValuesAsText

This year, the course was different since it took place completely digital (except one meeting where I discussed the students' project proposals with them in small groups og three students each). Based on the critique I received from the students last year as well as based on my own reflections, I had decided to change the concept of the course anyway since I felt the previous course did not help the students good enough with writing their master theses. So I already had planned to make the course more interactive when I was informed that it would be a completely digital course. This was a good coincidence since it is generally recommended to conceptualize digital courses strongly interactive. I must admit that developing the new concept was really a lot of work, but it was definitely worth it (and the new concept will also work in a physical course). From the beginning, I had the feeling that the students were very engaged and motivated, enjoyed their active participation in the course, the group discussions and exercises, and learned a lot. This personal impression was confirmed by the course evaluation in which about half of the participants took part. From the course evaluation, I also learned that the students did not experience it as negative that the course was digital. The only thing that could have worked better was the discussions and feedback from and with the students that I tried to initiate on Blackboard; if the students were not forced to take part in it, most of them didn't. But this can also be seen as a positive sign that the students could get all their questions answered during the lectures. At the end, I was really satisfied with the course and the quality of teaching and participation (even though there are still some details that I will adjust next time).

The learning outcome in this course is preparing the students for writing their master thesis. Therefore, enhancing critical and independent thinking is a very important goal in this course since the students need it for conducting good master theses. I clearly communicated that to the students both in the first lecture and in the materials they received from me, and I also made clear how I want to achieve this goal: with input from me, with preparations they should do before the lectures, with interactions, exercises and discussions during the lectures and with follow-up exercises on which they received feedback from me and from the other students. I feel the students understood and welcomed this concept (also based on their feedback I received from the course evaluation). The course has a relationship to other courses insofar as many students choose topics for their master theses that build on the content of other courses. The active learning concept, however, seemed to be quite new to many of the students.

As described above, the course was very interactive, and all exercises aimed at preparing the students for writing their master theses. The lectures addressed different topics that are relevant for writing a master thesis and aimed at providing "hands-on" advice (e.g. how to find a research question, how to find a supervisor, how to find theories that fit the research questions, how to choose the best method). The students were very motivated and engaged - on the one hand because they of course want to write a good master theses, but on the other hand also because they enjoyed the course and the exercises. Both I and the students experienced a very good learning atmosphere even though the lectures took place digitally.

The students don't get any grades in this course.

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(8884)/FieldValuesAsText

This course actually takes place in the autumn semester. In the spring, the students write their master thesis but do not have the course anymore.

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(5136)/FieldValuesAsText

This is already a good course, but it can and will be somewhat adjusted in order to increase the fit between the content of the course and the students' needs.

This course is created to help the students with their master theses, so it is relevant for them. Since it considers the different foci of their master theses, it is updated on a regular basis. The goals, content and expectations are clearly communicated to the students. The relationship with other courses depends on the topics the students choose for their master thesis.

The students considered the information given in this course useful for their master theses, and they appreciated the feedback given on their ideas for their master theses. Even though, however, the students' motivation and the atmosphere in the course were somewhat negatively affected by the fact that the students felt they had too many other obligations this semester. Therefore, they couldn't spend enough time on this course, even though they would have liked to. Moreover, it is somewhat confusing for them that they are expected to take part in the first four meetings twice - once in their first semester and once in their third semester.

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(2191)/FieldValuesAsText

Masteroppgave i medier, kommunikasjon og informasjonsteknologi - MV3091