Study Guide

Objective

Student:
- can communicate orally and in writing in a structured and linguistically well-functioning way
- knows the process of scientific writing and can use reference systems
- can use different ways to search for information and report according to the rules for standard layout

Students with Finnish as their schooling language must demonstrate such knowledge of Swedish as is required by public employees according to the law (424/2003). This means that these students should show satisfactory (grades 1-3) or good (grades 4-5) ability to use Swedish in speech and writing. Oral and written ability are assessed separately

Content

Plain language and scientific writing
Oral presentation

Location and time

Hösten 2024

Materials

-Novia UAS's writing instructions
-according to the lecturer (information on Moodle)

Teaching methods

Lectures, discussions, oral and written tasks both individually and in groups.

Employer connections

-

Exam schedules

Information about deadlines can be found on Moodle.

International connections

-

Completion alternatives

-oral presentation
-written assignments (according to the UAS's guidelines)

Student workload

3 x 27 h = 81 hours.

Content scheduling

-

Further information

-

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

The student demonstrates superficial competence and basic understanding of the subject

Assessment criteria, good (3)

The student demonstrates a competence that is related and linked to the literature
The student can reflect and motivate from his/her point of view

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

The student has an immerse competence and shows a deeper understanding of the subject in relation to the upcoming profession

Assessment methods and criteria

Grades 1-5 and in some assignments pass/fail.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

Assessment criteria for written assignments
The student has followed instructions but his/her knowledge of other students' work/assignments is inadequate. The student shows limited knowledge of the subject, he/she knows only the most essential matters.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment. His/her knowledge of other students' work/assignments is inadequate. The student demonstrates good subject knowledge in his/her written assignment but the implementation is limited.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Criteria for evaluation of written work individually or in groups
The student has followed the instructions for the written assignment and shows great knowledge of the subject. He/she has read the other participants' written assignments and can ask relevant questions and lead a discussion at the seminar. The written assignment and the possible opponentship show something out of the ordinary (technical accuracy, oral presentation, mature reflections, independent working methods).

Qualifications

Graduation from the second stage