Assessment in Anglo-American Studies seminars

Assessment in Anglo-American Studies seminars

Assessments in Anglo-American Studies seminars in modules 3, 5, 6, and 9 are based on individual and group oral and written achievement as detailed below.

Students attending the Module 3 seminar can reduce the number of possible questions in their Module 3 module oral exam by gaining points. Student work assessed in modules 5, 6, and 9 contributes to the written module exams in Module 5, Module 6, and in Module 9 for those students who choose me as their examiner.

Module 3 for group work (teamwork and homework in the topics lesson, teanwork, choice of questions, tips concerning writing research papers in the review conference sessions) and for individual work (for participation in the consultation sessions, in the topics lesson, in the paper, in the M3 seminar written review submissions, in the review conference sessions, for reports on course material, and for participation on OLAT). To reflect the importance of the review conference sessions as a successful conclusion to the M3 seminar and as the best preparation for the M3 orals, students can earn double the number of points for successful completion of their tasks (see the evaluation template online for details).

Every two points results in one question deleted from the list of possible questions from the seminar part of the Module 3 oral exam. Students who have joined groups but who do not complete their teaching tasks, or do not complete their parts of the research paper, do not submit reviews on time, or do not actively contribute to their group's review conference session can receive minus points. All students (including those with individual status) can earn points through reports on course material.

Modules 5, 6, and 9 for individual oral work in the topics lessons, for group and individual work in the seminar research paper, and for group work for the written review submissions. You can also earn points for reports on course material, participation in the review conference sessions, and by using the course tools on OLAT. Additional bonus points are also possible; for example, students who are justifiably especially proud of their warm-up lessons and corresponding paper excerpts can request bonus points for these normally ungraded tasks by booking slots to see me and by providing evidence in person (not by email).

Course grades can be used as a bonus for the module exam grades: more details about the Module 5 written module exam, the Module 6 written module exam, the Module 9 written module exam online. The following scale converts points earned into the course grade:

70 and above = 1	61-64 = 2+	41-44 = 3+	20-24 = 4+	below 10 = 5
70 and above = 1	50-60 = 2	30-40 = 3	10-19 = 4
65-69 = 1-	45-49 = 2-	25-29 = 3-	10-19 = 4

Your course grade reflects written and oral work as well as group and individual achievement and includes content, presentation skills, and language components. Written components make up circa 55% and oral components circa 45% of the final course grade. Individual work makes up circa 75% and group work circa 25% of the final course grade. Content makes up circa 60%, oral presentation skills circa 10%, written research skills circa 10%, oral and written language skills 20% of the individual work component.

Students who do not participate regularly and who do not gain at least ten points will not receive minimum credit for the course. Kursteilnahme muss eine inhaltliche Vorbereitung und Beteiligung am Unterricht in Form von kleinen mündlichen Leistungen wie Diskussionsbeiträgen, Kurzreferaten, kurzen Präsentationen und aktive Gruppenarbeit beinhalten. Ansonsten kann die regelmäßige Teilnahme an Kursen ohne Prüfungsleistung (M 5.1, Wahlkurse in M 6 und M 8) nicht bescheinigt werden. (Beschluss der Kollegialen Leitung in der Sitzung am 27.06.2012)

M3 students can download and fill out your own points sheet. M5, M6, and M9 students can download and fill out your own grading sheet.

The symbols + (excellent), √ (good), and — or blank (poor, failure) are used to indicate achievement in the various aspects. Content points are multiplied by a weighted factor to indicate the importance of content in our seminars. The first scale applies mostly to tasks in Module 3, the second is for most of the tasks in modules 5, 6, and 9.

H (honors) =2 points (eine hervorragende bis gute Leistung): +++, ++√.
P (pass) = 1 point (eine durchschnittliche bis ausreichende Leistung): ++—, +√√, +√—, √√√, √√—.
F (poor or fail) = 0 points (eine ungenügende Leistung): +— — , √— —, — — —.

H (honors) = 4 points (eine hervorragende Leistung) +++, ++√.
P+ (strong pass) = 3 points (eine gute Leistung): ++—, +√√.
P (pass) = 2 points (eine durchschnittliche Leistung): +√—, √√√, √√—.
P- (weak pass) = 1 point (eine ausreichende Leistung): +— — , √— —.
F (poor or fail) = 0 points (eine ungenügende Leistung): — — —.

Individual points: written lesson/paper review submissions (Module 3)
	content (x2)	presentation	language
+	detailed summary of content with concrete examples taken from the lesson and the paper	good summary of teaching (lesson) and presentation (paper)	good summary of oral language (lesson) and written language (paper)
√	acceptable summary of content of the lesson and paper	some mention of teaching (lesson) and presenation (paper)	some mention of oral language (lesson) and written language (paper)
—	poor or no summary of content of the lesson and / or paper	few or no details about teaching (lesson) or presentation (paper)	few or no details about oral language (lesson) or written language (paper)
results	H (2 points) = three or more +, no — 0 points = two or more — or considerably more or considerably fewer words than given in the special M3 reviews template P (1 point) = all other combinations Fail = review not turned in by final deadline and minus 2 points for each group member

Group grade: written lesson/paper review submissions (Modules 5, 6, and 9)
	content (x2)	presentation	language	language used in review
+	detailed summary of content, concrete examples taken from lessons and papers	details warm-up and topic lessons, presentation warm-up excerpt and research paper	detailed comparison oral language in lessons, written language in papers	advanced English, few mistakes and with range syntax, lexis
√	good summary lesson and paper content	some details teaching and presentation paper	some details about oral and written language	average number of language mistakes
—	poor ir no summary of lesson or paper content	few or no details about teaching or presentation paper	few or no details about oral or written language	many mistakes in all language areas
results	H (4 points) = at least four +, no — P+ (3 points) = three +, no — P (2 points) = at most one — P- (1 point) = two — 0 points = more than two — Fail = review not turned in final deadline and minus 4 points for each group member

Module 3 Review Conference Sessions (group points)
teamwork
H	perfect timing of 20 minutes with good use of media for the entire session
P	within three minutes of perfect timing and/or some lack of visual support
F	more then three minutes overtime and/or lack of visual support for most/all of the session
choice of questions
H	choice or modification of at least one question from Part II and at least four additional appropriate M3 questions
P	have to provide one question because questions suggested not appropriate and/or relevant for the topic
F	have to provide more than one question
tip for future research papers
H	one new important tip based on analysis of paper(s) according to my evaluation and student reviews
P	tip already mentioned by another group and/or a new unimportant tip not useful for all students
F	no tip given or no indication tip was based on analysis of papers, my evaluation, or student reviews

Module 3 Review Conference Sessions (individual points)
relevance for Anglo-American Studies
H	clear connections to content from previous seminar classes or lectures and/or of course material
P	some evidence of connections to AS content but exact context not clear or explicit enough
F	no explicit evidence that previous seminar classes or lectures played a role in choice of content, no use of any course material
audience relevance
H	clear relevance and/or choice of content from course material based on audience interest
P	some evidence of audience relevance
F	no explicit evidence that the content was chosen with audience in mind
use of my evaluation and student reviews
H	clear evidence that my evaluation and student reviews used to correct or clarify content
P	some evidence of use of my evaluation or student reviews
F	no explicit evidence that my evaluation or student reviews were used

Module 5, 6, 9 Review Conference Sessions (group grade for each group member) Honors = 2 points, Pass = 1 point
teamwork
H	perfect timing 30 minutes (15 minutes warm-up review) with good use of media for entire session
P	within three minutes of perfect timing and/or some lack of visual support
F	more then three minutes and/or lack of visual support for most/all of the session
tips for future research papers
H	three (one for warm-up review) new important tips based on analysis of their paper and/or other papers
P	tip(s) already mentioned by another group and/or a new unimportant tip not useful for all students
F	no tip given or no indication that tip based on close analysis of papers, my evaluation, or student reviews

Module 5, 6, 9 Review Conference Sessions (individual grade) Honors = 4 points, P+ = 3 points, P = 2 points, P- = 1 point
	content (x3) mistakes / models	presentation (x2) mistakes / models	language mistakes / models
+	clear links to seminars/modules and/or to course material with improved versions	clear audience relevance, appropriate improved versions; M5/M9: clear didactic aspects for use at school(s)	oral (lessons) and written language (papers) useful all students
√	links to seminars/modules, no appropriate improved versions	audience relevance, no appropriate improved versions; M5/M9: some didactic aspects for use at school(s)	oral and/or written language somewhat useful
—	few or no connections to seminars/modules and no appropriate improved versions	little/no audience relevance, no appropriate improved versions; M5/M9: no mention of didactic aspects for use at school(s)	oral and/or written language little relevance and/or examples wrong
results	H: at least four +, no — ; P+ : three +, no —; P: at most one —; P-: two — ; 0: more than two — ; Fail: unexcused absence or no participation: minus 4 points

The following criteria apply to all M3.2, M5.2, M6.1, and M9.1 seminars.

Individual preparation for consultations sessions
H = 2 points	answers to all questions online in first session, answers to all questions given for second/third sessions, and all members present for session
P = 1 point	some preparation, some answers to questions online in first session, some questions still unanswered for second/third sessions
F = 0 points	little or no evidence of preparation, no answers to questions online in first session, no answers to questions for second/third sessions

You can earn double the number of points if you're very well prepared in an optional consultation session in my office booked in advance and also have been present for a total of three sessions altogether.

Individual reports on course material items
	content (x2)	presentation	language
+	chose correct category (basic handbook in area and/or cultural studies; documentary; movie; advanced anthology of academic essays; miscellaneous) and provided explicitly relevant information for students and course / was fully able to answer questions	five minute oral presentation and one-page attractive flyer made accessible before report	clear and easy to understand oral presentation, few language mistakes on the flyer
√	provided some information relevant for students and course / answered some questions	timing problems (a minute too short or a minute overtime) or flyer with little information	some hesitation or serious oral or written language mistakes
—	provided little or no information relevant for students and course / answered few or no questions correctly	serious timing problems (more than two minutes too short or overtime) and/or flyer with little useful information	lack of fluency and serious oral and written language mistakes
results	H (4 points) = at least three +, no — P+ (3 points) = two +, no — P (2 points) = at most one — P- (1 point) = two — 0 points = more than two — Fail = did not deliver report as promised or did not distribute/upload flyer (minus 1 point)

Please use the following criteria relevant for your own written review submissions and for your participation in our review conference sessions (also available in pdf for you to easily download and bring to class).

Group points or grade for each group member: teamwork in topics lessons
H = 2 points	superb teamwork, obvious evidence that all student-teachers were aware of the structure of the entire lesson, excellent timing
P = 1 point	few occurrences of confusion or uncertainty of all student-teachers of the structure of the entire lesson, lesson finished within 5 minutes of planned time
F = 0 points	little or no evidence of coordinated planning and / or lesson ran more than 5 minutes overtime or finished more than 5 minutes earlier
Group points or grade: use of homework in the topics lessons
H = 2 points	appropriate homework assigned and integrated fully into the lesson
P = 1 point	homework assigned but not integrated fully into the lesson
F = 0 points	either no homework assigned or homework assigned not dealt with at all in the lesson

Group points or grade: layout, organization, and bibliography in the papers
layout
+	graphics, font size, margins, indentation, line numbers, A 5 both sides. For the grade of +: at most one √, no —
√	at most two — for the six aspects above
—	more than two — for the six aspects above
organization
+	title is precise and clearly indicates the focus of the paper; excellent table of contents with consistent capitalization of chapters and subchapters; clear overall structure showing logical development and appropriate number and length of chapters and subchapters with never only one subchapter per chapter; excellent introduction that makes the reader want to continue; excellent conclusion that gives the reader a sense of closure; clear transitions between the chapters. For the grade of +: at most one √, no —
√	at most two — for the six aspects above
—	more than two — for the six aspects above
bibliography
+	sequence: one annotated bibliography with no divisions or categories and with a clear sequence of sources usually arranged alphabetically by author’s last name or by title or short form of URL if author is not known; information given: each individual source includes all normal bibliographical details; choice of sources: sufficient number of published sources indicating the students are familiar with the most important published works dealing with the subject including course books and with no use of German sources without convincing reasons that the information could not be found in sources written in English; book critiques: details about the choice of book with clear relevance for topic including critique and location and evidence of reliability; website critiques: detailed and convincing explanation for the use of websites (answering the WWWWWW questions) including the exact complete address of websites and web pages given. For the grade of +: at most one √, no —
√	at most two — for the five aspects above
—	more than two — for the five aspects above

Individual points or grades: Content (lessons and papers)
relevance for Anglo-American Studies (AS)
+	clear and repeated evidence of content relevance for Anglo-American Studies topics with evidence of having learned previous course content and/or are aware of upcoming course topics and clear and repeated use of course material or explicit explanations of why which course material (concrete examples necessary) wasn't used
√	some indication of content relevance for Anglo-American Studies topics or some explicit use of course material
—	no explicit evidence that content relevance for AS topics played a role in choice of content, no use of any course material
- ...	minus points for wrong facts (!)
audience relevance (aud)
+	clear and repeated evidence of content relevance for German students of English and choice of content from course material based on audience interest
√	some evidence of of content relevance for German students of English
—	no explicit evidence that the content was chosen with the audience in mind
personal touch (pt)
+	explicit use of strong personal interest in choice of content and use of memorable examples and quotations or evidence of explicit critical use of sources
√	some evidence of strong personal interest in choice of content or use of memorable examples and quotations
—	no explicit evidence that personal opinion or experience or strong personal interest played any role in choice of content and no indication of explicit critical use of sources and no use of memorable examples and quotations

Individual points or grades: Presentation (lessons)
audience awareness
+	continual explicit evidence of audience awareness through eye contact, use of names and / or careful listening
√	some evidence of audience awareness
—	no evidence of audience awareness
use of media
+	correct use of all media with attention to legibility and to relevance for content and for audience
√	some good use of media
—	poor use of media: illegible, little or no relevance for content and / or for audience
	no use of media
eloquence and / or interaction
+	eloquent lecture and / or interaction
√	some evidence of eloquence and preparation and/or some interaction
—	no evidence of eloquence and / or no useful interaction

Individual points or grades: Presentation and citations (papers)
accidental plagiarism avoided (intentional plagiarism results in an automatic grade of 5 for the course, expulsion from the course, and notification of all staff members) (pl)
+	no trace of accidental plagiarism in any passage, all sources clearly given
√	most sources clearly given, a few passages unclear as to source used
—	few or no sources given, risk of accidental plagiarism not avoided
use of citations (c)
+	all citations given correctly and exactly and all easy to find in bibliography
√	most citations given correctly, not all easy to find in bibliography or superfluous information given
—	few or no citations given correctly, little or no coordination with bibliography
paragraph unity and coherence (l)
+	unified, well-developed, and coherent paragraphs with clear transitions within and between paragraphs
√	some unified paragraphs and some coherence, some problems with transitions within () and between paragraphs ()
—	poor paragraph unity (§), little coherence with few transitions within () and between paragraphs ()

Individual points or grades: Language (lessons)
pronunciation (including intonation, v/w contrast, voicing, th/ths, vowels, linking)
+	near native speaker spoken skills, no problems in any area
√	some problems in some areas, slight German or foreign accent
—	problems in most areas, thick German or foreign accent
enunciation and fluency
+	clear enunciation and very fluent
√	clear enunciation or very fluent
—	neither clear enunciation nor adequately fluent
lexis and accuracy
+	no mistakes in lexis or in accuracy with an advanced range
√	average number of mistakes and average range in lexis and in accuracy
—	serious mistakes in lexis and / or accuracy

Individual points or grades: Language (papers) (!) indicates serious mistake (-2)
punctuation and spelling (sp)
+	no more than two mistakes in punctuation and in spelling, evidence of varied punctuation and spelling of words that pose problems for German writers
√	up to five mistakes
—	more than five mistakes
	no evidence - no original writing because of overuse of direct quotes or because of accidental plagiarism
grammar and stylistics (gs)
+	no more than two mistakes in grammar (verb, adverb, article) or in stylistics (pronoun, shifts)
√	up to five mistakes
—	more than five mistakes
	no evidence - no original writing because of overuse of direct quotes or because of accidental plagiarism
lexis and syntax (ls) [syntax mistakes in square brackets], examples of advanced lexis and syntax use (+) cancel out mistakes
+	no more than two mistakes in lexis or syntax with an advanced range
√	up to five mistakes
—	more than five mistakes
	no evidence - no original writing because of overuse of direct quotes or because of accidental plagiarism

Semesters of experimentation have resulted in the assessment system described above for the Anglo-American Studies and Cultural Studies components of the modular B.Ed. teaching degree (in Modules 3, 5, 6, and 9). You can see the data (grades and percentages) for all AS courses from WiSe 06/07 until SoSe 11. Further information about grades for the M3 oral exam since SoSe 11 available online. You can also find details about the older systems that I used from WiSe 06/07 until end of SoSe 10 online, which I gradually modified to reflect student achievement more accurately and to take into account changes in the B.Ed. degree program (for example, from WiSe 10/11: no more Prüfungsvorleistungen, change of Module 4.1 from seminar to lecture).

Impressum / Disclaimer
10.XI.2014

course material reports changed only 23.XI.2016