0x010088F6312065A70A44B630A6848498EAD80093CFEAFE161DC94D83C7C5C9A5A748B8

Participants: This semester, 5 ph.d. candidates from two different universities participated, 4 from theoretical linguistics and 1 from applied linguistics. 4 participants usually attended physically whereas 1 usually attended digitally. The course's main content fall 2022:<ul><li>Presentation and discussion of the 5 participants' ph.d. projects</li><li>Presentation and round-table discussion of 9 research papers related to the 5 ph.d. projects and selected by the participants and the course leader</li><li>Introduction and discussion of 5 different academic genres (i.e. academic summary, conference abstract, peer review (+research paper), and literature review)</li><li>+nAn individual curriculum used in each participant's final literature review</li></ul> An additional goal of the course was to extend the participants' research networks. Thus, 6 experts (usually authors of papers that were discussed) visited parts of the seminar sessions, either digitally on Teams of physically. All participants at the course met at least one expert from their field. Obligatory activities: Oral presentation of own research project, oral presentation of 2 research articles (based on a reading guide), active participation at all the seminar sessions, including giving feedback to two other ph.d. candidates' texts and receiving feedback on one's own text. Assessments: Approval of 2 small academic texts (e.g. a paper summary and a conference abstract) and one more extensive literature review. Feedback from the participants:In the last session, the participants reported that the learning outcome from the course had been high, especially for the participants who had recently started their ph.d. period. They highlighted the following positive aspects of the course:<ul><li>It is good to practice (over and over again) academic discussion in a small and friendly group like this</li><li>It is great meeting and having discussions with experts from one's own sub discipline (who can answer questions relevant for one's ph.d. project)</li><li>It is interesting and useful to get to know other sub disciplines of linguistics than one's own (here, both theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics, covering both deductive and inductive studies)</li><li>It is useful to read papers from different sub disciplines and to see how they differ at the textual level (especially structure)</li><li>It is useful to get input from people from other sub disciplines (to detect possible "blind spots" within one own's sub discipline)</li><li>It is useful to both give and get feedback on academic texts</li><li>By looking at papers from various sub disciplines, one becomes more aware of research ethical considerations, both in other fields and in one's own field</li><li>Using the reading guide was useful for structuring the presentations and the discussions of the texts</li><li>The workload was a bit higher than expected for a 5 ECTS course (should be extended to 7.5)</li><li>It was tough to have 4-hour's sessions and it would have been good to have more pauses</li></ul> Course leader's experiences:The overall experience is that this form of seminar, arranged around papers selected by the participants and a selection of academic genres, works very well. The participants prepare well and initiate interesting and relevant discussions. The fact that the participants appreciate the visits by the experts so much, shows that it is important that the course leader not only asks the participants whether they would like to have an expert visiting, and if so, who, but presents this as obligatory: "Who should I invite?". So far, no invited experts have rejected the invitation. Another positive experience from this year's seminar, is that it is extremely fruitful to have participants form both applied and theoretical linguistics, to increase mutual knowledge about (and respect for) each other, as well as highlighting each discipline's strengths and weaknesses. This year's seminar verified the impression from last year that this should be a 7.5 credits course, not a 5 credits course. Improvements from last yearThe development of the course has been positive, with the following improvements compared to last year (2021): i) Access to Blackboard, ii) visiting experts related to all the participants' projects, iii) the candidates presented not only their own ph.d. project, but also their own sub discipline(s), and iv) the participants gave each other feedback on one text that they wrote. Changes next yearThe credits for the course should be extended from 5 to 7.5, both because today's course is more demanding than what is requested for 5 credits and because extending the number of seminar sessions will allow for a more relaxed speed (including appropriate amounts of pauses). Moreover, the course description should be changed so that it fits better with the actual learning outcome, which is: 1) Deepened knowledge of one's own ph.d. project and sub discipline, 2) broadened knowledge of linguistics (understood in its broadest sense), and 3) practice in writing various academic genres.

NTNU:TIA:REST

Det humanistiske fakultet

Faculty of Humanities

Engelsk

Mer om vurdering

Obligatoriske aktiviteterDeltakelse på 5 seminarer (à 3 timer) og muntlige presentasjoner.Spesielle vilkårAktivitet fra tidligere semester kan godkjennes av instituttet

Anbefalte forkunnskaper

Forkunnskapskrav

Faglig innhold

Emnet består av diskusjoner og refleksjoner omkring teoretiske eller metodiske tekster som er av betydning for deltakernes forskningsprosjekter.

Kursmateriell

Opplyses ved oppstart og bestemmes på bakgrunn av gruppens sammensetning og faglige behov.

Læringsutbytte

Kandidaten skal etter endt deltakelse ha oppnådd:Kunnskap- om sentrale teoretiske og metodiske problemstillinger innen språkvitenskapen og kunne redegjøre for disse.Ferdigheter- kunne drøfte teoretiske utlegninger, resonnementer og faglig argumentasjon, også ut over egne fagspesifikke rammer.

Læringsformer og aktiviteter

Emnet er seminarbasert. Deltakeren skal holde tre innlegg ved tre ulike seminarer, en presentasjon av eget ph.d.-prosjekt, samt to presentasjoner av fagtekster. Etter presentasjon og kommentarer gjøres teksten til gjenstand for felles diskusjon. Deltageren forventes også å fungere som kommentator til andres innlegg. Kandidaten skal i løpet av kurset levere inn tre akademiske tekster av relevans for avhandlingen eller senere arbeid, f.eks. et sammendrag av en artikkel, et konferanse-sammendrag (‘abstract’), en fagfellevurdering og/eller en litteraturgjennomgang (‘literature review’), til sammen ca. 5000 ord.Dersom det er mange påmeldte, kan en av de muntlige aktivitetene måtte byttes ut med en kort skriftlig innlevering.Ved for stor interesse vil interne kandidater prioriteres.En redusert versjon av kurset (med færre studiepoeng og redusert arbeidsmengde) kan avtales med kursleder.

Deltakelse

Språkvitenskapelige teorier og metoder 

Språkfag

Språkvitenskap - doktorgrad (ph.d.)

Evaluation of SPRÅK8867

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(20769)/FieldValuesAsText

Emnebeskrivelsen for SPRÅK8867 bør endres, slik at kurset gir 7.5 studiepoeng istedenfor 5, og slik at de oppførte læringsmålene bedre dekker det faktiske læringsutbyttet. 

Tiltak

Endre emenebeskrivelse for SPRÅK8867

The course was taught for the first time in the fall 2021 (i.e. this was the first time the course was run). Despite this, the ph.d. candidates report that the learning outcome from the course has been high. The learning outcome includes i) a deepened understanding of each candidate's own project, ii) increased knowledge of the wider field of language studies, and iii) knowledge about (and skills in) academic writing.

5 ph.d. candidates from two different universities participated. Some candidates participated digitally on some events, which worked well. This means that the course can be taken by candidates from other universities even if they cannot participate physically at each seminar session. The course was quite busy and "full" with only 5 candidates. A possible problem might occur if more candidates participate, since a considerable part of the course is oral presentations by the candidates. This may be solved by transforming the oral assignments into written ones, or by expanding the course into a 7.5 ECTS course. The seminar sessions were led by the course coordinator, but four different experts participated as "visiting stars" on various occasions, either physically or on zoom. All five ph.d. candidates were asked to propose an expert to invite (who would be of help to their project or could answer questions related to the paper they presented). However, none of the candidates took advantage of this offer, which was a pity. Next time, the course coordinator should push the candidates harder on this point. The course was arranged as a series of 5 seminar sessions of 3 hours each plus a digital wrap-up session. The experience was that time was a bit too short. Some of the candidates reported that they would have appreciated a bit more time being spent on some topics. One might therefore consider extending each session to 4 hours and/or adding a sixth session. In the future, one might also consider changing the course into a 7.5 ECTS course. The participants represented different sub disciplines of linguistics, which was positive for the candidates' learning outcome and familiarization with different traditions and the position of their own sub discipline in this scientific landscape. However, this learning outcome could have been even higher if the candidates did not only present their own ph.d. project, but also their respective academic (sub) disciplines. This should ideally be incorporated next time the course is arranged, which means that one probably has to advocate a bit more time for each session. The obligatory oral presentations and discussions worked very well; the presentations were informative, the discussions were interesting and formative, and in general the candidates performed extremely well. Also the written assignments were reported to be very useful to the candidates. They chose among different acadmic genres; paper summary, conference abstract, or peer review + a (more extensive) literature review. One task that the candidates ask for in the evaluation, is for them to review each other's written assignment on at least one occasion. This is a very good suggestion that can easily be incorporated into the course. Unfortunately, the course did not have access to Blackboard or some other common digital platform until the course was almost finished. The next time the course is taught, Blackboard should be exploited, e.g. by providing introduductory extra reading material when dvelving into a new sub discipline.

Web/Lists(guid'8b698a2d-6ad0-4f7d-b3be-219cc1979f02')/Items(18556)/FieldValuesAsText

Språkvitenskapelige teorier og metoder - SPRÅK8867