School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research
Module Outline
|
SO552 Major Themes in the Analysis of Modern Industrial Society |
|
Module Convenor: Dr Balihar Sanghera (b.s.sanghera@kent.ac.uk) Office Hours: Wednesdays 2-4 pm, Bridge Wardens’ College |
|
Module Summary This course will explore the nature of social, political, cultural and moral embeddedness in advanced industrial societies. It involves the examination of key economic institutions, and how their connections to polity and culture are changing. The course will examine:
|
|
Level: Stage 2/3 |
Teaching Period: 2005/06 |
|
|
Credits: 30 |
ECTS Credits: |
|
|
Pre-requisite and co-requisite modules: Introduction to Sociology (SO306), Social Problems and Social Policy (SA311) or Introduction to Politics (PO307) |
||
|
Assessment: |
50% examination, 30% coursework (15% for a long essay and 15% for three reflection essays) and 20% seminar participation |
|
|
Lecture: |
Wednesdays 1-2 pm, Bridge Wardens’ College |
|
Seminar: |
Wednesdays 2.30-3.30 pm, Bridge Wardens’ College |
|
Lecturer: Dr Balihar Sanghera |
E-mail: |
|
Coursework deadlines Reflection Essay 1: Week 13 Reflection Essay 2: Week 19 Reflection Essay 3: Week 25 Long Essay: Week 25 |
|
Electronic support: Some course material is available through the server “Ward”. You will need a login in order to access the folder. The folder can be accessed through the following procedure: On a public PC, after the login, you should see an icon labelled “My Computer” on your screen (normally the upper left corner). Double click on “My Computer” and then on “Courses on Ward (V)”. Double click on “Courses”. You will see a great many folders – the folder for this module is SO306. There is a copy of this course outline on “Ward” from which you can click on the internet links to be taken directly to the website. Students are also expected to check their emails accounts regularly. |
|
Learning outcomes The intended learning outcomes are: · Critically judge and evaluate theoretical ideas and empirically based arguments in political economy and economic sociology. · Appreciate the complexity and diversity of industrial institutions and arrangements. · Work independently on essays and seminar presentations, and to discuss together during sessions. · Achieve competence in using major theoretical perspectives on industrialised societies and comment on their strengths and weaknesses. · Use empirical data to explore the nature of social division, distribution and recognition, and critically assess the key data sources. At the end of this module successful students will also have developed skills in: · identifying and gathering appropriate library and web-based resources; · making judgments about the merits of resources; · using available evidence to construct an argument to be presented orally or in writing; and · apply social science theory and research evidence to understandings of industrialised societies. |
Key ResourcesBooks The core textbooks for this module are: · Don Slater and Fran Tonkiss, 2001, Market Society, Polity Press, Cambridge. · Barry Smart, 2003, Economy, Culture and Society, Open University, Buckingham. Multiple copies are held in the Medway Campus Library and the Templeman Library. The following are also recommended: · John Allen, Peter Braham and Paul Lewis (eds), 1992, Political and Economic Forms of Modernity, Polity in association with The Open University, Cambridge · Bruce Carruthers and Sarah Babb, 2000, Economy/Society: markets, meanings and social structure, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks. Journals The Templeman library has a wide selection of journals which include articles on sociological issues. All the journals are available online through the Templeman Library webpage as well as in hard copy. You are encouraged to browse through journals. The most important are: · Work, Employment & Society · International Journal of Urban and Regional Research · Economy and Society · Capital & Class · Sociological Review · American Journal of Sociology · Sociology Websites There is increasingly a vast amount of material on the internet on sociological issues. The following are recommended. Both have helpful links attached to them. · A Sociological Tour Through Cyberspace: http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/index.html · SOSIG - Social Science Information Gateway: http://www.sosig.ac.uk/sociology/ · Sociosite: http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/sociosite/ · Home Office: www.homeoffice.gov.uk (contains publications, statistics and policy documents) You can also use other search engines to find other sites (e.g., www.google.co.uk ). However, be careful as the quality of internet material is variable. You should take care to reference internet sources accurately. Dictionaries Any sociology dictionary will be a useful resource but Gordon Marshall (ed.), 1994, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, will be particularly helpful. |
1. Introduction: aims of the module and introduction to major themes and topics (;)
2. Classical Perspectives: a discussion of classical political economy (liberalism and Marxism) on the emergence and development of industrial societies (Hall, Held and McGrew Ch1; Slater and Tonkiss Ch1; Holton Chs3&5; Hall and Gieben Ch3; Smart Ch1).
Seminar: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (various), ‘Primary Historical Relations’, ‘The Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas’, ‘The Formation of Classes’, ‘Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’, ‘Bourgeois and Proletarians’, Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation’, ‘Co-operation’ and ‘Cardinal Facts of Capitalist Production’ in Robert Antonio (ed), 2003, Marx and Modernity: Key Readings and Commentary, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford; pp. 57-66; 90-100.
3. Social Embeddedness: an examination of how economic practices and relationships are socially embedded with trust and norms (Holton Chs1&2; Carruthers and Babb Ch1; Slater and Tonkiss Ch4; Smart Ch1).
Seminar: Mark Granovetter, 1985, ‘Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness’, American Journal of Sociology, 91.3: 481-510.
4. Networks: an exploration of ways in which labour, capital and product markets are structured by networks social embeddedness, trust and networks (Carruthers and Babb Ch3; Slater and Tonkiss Ch4; Sayer Ch4).
Seminar: Mark Granovetter, 1973, ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78.6: 1360-1380.
5. Reading Week
6. Markets I: the nature of the liberal market model and its moralising process (Slater and Tonkiss Ch2; Carruthers and Babb Ch2; Holton Ch3; Smart Ch4; Sayer Ch4).
Seminar: Andrew Sayer, 1995, ‘Markets: Key Theoretical Debates – consumer sovereignty and equality, neutrality and amorality’ Radical Political Economy: A Critique, Blackwell, Oxford; pp.121-134.
7. Market II: contradictions and crises of market economy (Slater and Tonkiss Ch3; Holton Ch4; Smart Ch5; Sayer Ch5; Allen, Braham and Lewis Ch6).
Seminar: Albert Hirschman, 1982, 'Rival Interpretations of Market Society: Civilising, Destructive or Feeble?’, Journal of Economic Literature, XX December: 1463-1484.
8. Organisations I: the nature, functions and conflicts within work organisations (Carruthers and Babb Ch4; Allen, Braham and Lewis Chs7&8; Hamilton and Thompson Ch4; du Paul Chs5&6).
Seminar: Craig Littler, 1978, 'Understanding Taylorism', in John Allen, Peter Braham and Paul Lewis (eds), 1992, Political and Economic Forms of Modernity, Polity Press in association with The Open University, Cambridge; pp.371-383.
9. Organisations II: identity- and gender-neutrality of organisations (du Paul Chs5&6; Jordon and Pile Ch6; Witz various Chs, Walby a&b various Chs).
Seminar: Christine Wellington and John Bryson, 2001, ‘At Face Value? Image Consultancy, Emotional Labour and Professional Work’, Sociology, 35.4: 933-946.
10. Online Resources Workshop: a session on how to access online resources such as e-journals and academic search engines. To be conducted by a librarian.
Seminar: continuation of workshop
11. Family and Households: the nature of domestic division of labour and its implications for employment and welfare policy (Bocock and Thompson Ch2; Jordan and Pile Ch5; Bennett and Watson Ch1; Walby a&b various Chs).
Seminar: Ann Robertson, 1997, ‘Beyond Apocalyptic Demography: Towards a Moral Economy of Interdependence’, Ageing and Society, 17: 425-446.
12. Welfare State: the nature and role of the state in advanced industrialised society (Slater and Tonkiss Ch5; Holton Ch5; Smart Ch2; Allen, Braham and Lewis Ch4; Hamilton and Thompson Ch2).
Seminar: Peter Taylor-Gooby, Trine Larsen and Johannes Kananen, 2004, ‘Market Means and Welfare Ends: The UK Welfare State Experiment’, Journal of Social Policy, 33.4: 573-592.
Winter Vacation
13. Consumer Culture: the nature and process of commodification and consumerism in contemporary societies (Carruthers and Babb Ch2; Slater and Tonkiss Ch1; Bocock and Thompson Ch3; Mackay Ch1; Lury Ch4; Slater various Chs; Edwards various Chs; Bennett and Watson Chs4&5).
Seminar: Ian Loader, 1999, ‘Consumer Culture and the Commodification of Policing and Security’, Sociology, 33.2: 373-392.
14. Test: in-class timed written essay
Seminar: Discussion of essays and self-assessment
15. Commerce and Culture: an examination of ways of conceptualising the link between culture and economy (Slater and Tonkiss Ch6; Holton Ch8; Smart Ch3; du Gay Chs3, 4 &5; Hamilton and Thompson Ch4; Keat various Chs).
Seminar: Pierre Bourdieu, 1983,'The Forms of Capital', in Mark Granovetter and Richard Swedberg (eds), 2001, The Sociology of Economic Life, 2nd edition, Westview Press, Cambridge, MA; pp.96-111.
16. Post-industrial society: an investigation of claims of societal transformation to a post-industrial society (Allen, Braham and Lewis Ch5; Hall, Held and McGrew Ch4; Jordon and Pile Ch 3; Slater and Tonkiss Ch7; Sayer Ch3; Amin various Chs).
Seminar: Manuel Castells, 1989, ‘The Informational Mode of Development’, in Stuart Hall, David Held and Tony McGrew, 1992, Modernity and Its Future, Polity Press in association with The Open University, Cambridge; pp. 205-210. Manuel Castells, 2000, ‘Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society’, in Tim Jordon and Steve Pile (eds), 2002, Social Change, Blackwell Publishing in association with The Open University, Oxford; pp.123-128.
17. Globalisation: the nature of a globalised society/economy, and different approaches to globalisation (Carruthers and Babb Chs5, 6 &7; Hall, Held and McGrew Ch2; du Gay Ch1; Held Chs1&3; Held and McGrew various Chs).
Seminar: David Held, 2003, ‘Cosmopolitanism: globalization tamed?’, Review of International Studies, 29: 465-480.
18. Reading Week
19. Advanced Capitalist State: theories of the relationship between the capitalist state and advanced industrialised society (Allen, Braham and Lewis Ch2; Hamilton and Thompson Ch2; Jessop a&b various Chs).
Seminar: Robert Boyer and Daniel Drache (eds), 1996, ‘Introduction’, in States Against Markets: the limits of globalisation, Routledge, London; pp.1-27.
20. Moral Economy: an examination of how the economic practices can be both moral and immoral and ways of embedded relationships with values (Smart Ch4; Holton Chs7, 8 &9; Ray and Sayer Chs1, 2, 3 &4; Sayer (b) various Chs; O’Neill various Chs).
Seminar: Andrew Sayer, 2004, Moral economy, published by the Sociology Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YL, UK at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/sociology/papers/sayer-moral-economy.pdf
21. Professionalism at work: the nature of professional practices and ethics in various social fields social embeddedness, trust and networks (Keat Chs4&5; Witz various Chs; Larson various Chs; various articles).
Seminar: Fenella Starkey, 2003, ‘The ‘’Empowerment Debate’’: Consumerist, Professional and Liberational Perspectives in Health and Social Care’, Social Policy and Society, 2.4: 273-284.
22. Market transition: an examination of economic and social transformations in post-soviet and developing societies (Outhwaite and Ray various Chs; Holmes various Chs; Smith various Chs; Sakwa various Chs).
Seminar: Deema Kaneff ,2002, ‘The shame and pride of market activity: morality, identity and trading in post-socialist rural Bulgaria’, in Ruth Mandel and Caroline Humphrey (eds), Market and Moralities: ethnographies of postsocialism, Berg, Oxford; pp. 33-51.
23. Ecology: environmental contradictions and crises of advanced industrialised societies (Hall, Held and McGrew Ch3; Keat Ch3; Dobson various Chs; various articles)
Seminar: John O’Neill, 1997, ‘Value Pluralism, Incommensurability and Institutions’, in John Foster (ed), Valuing Nature? Economics, Ethics and Environment, Routledge, London; pp. 75-88.
24. Revision
Seminar: Revision and essay consultation
Easter Vacation
25. Revision
Seminar: Revision
26. Revision
Seminar: Revision
Don Slater and Fran Tonkiss, 2001, Market Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Bruce Carruthers and Sarah Babb, 2000, Economy/Society: markets, meanings and social structure, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks.
Robert Holton, 1992, Economy and Society, Routledge, London.
Barry Smart, 2003, Economy, Culture and Society, Open University, Buckingham.
Andrew Sayer, 1995, Radical Political Economy, Blackwell, Oxford.
John Allen, Peter Braham and Paul Lewis (eds), 1992, Political and Economic Forms of Modernity, Polity in association with The Open University, Cambridge.
Stuart Hall, David Held and Tony McGrew (eds), 1992, Modernity and Its Future, Polity in association with The Open University, Cambridge.
Robert Bocock and Kenneth Thompson (eds), 1992, Social and Cultural Forms of Modernity, Polity in association with The Open University, Cambridge.
Stuart Hall and Bram Gieben (eds), 1992, Formations of Modernity, Polity in association with The Open University, Cambridge.
Tim Jordan and Steve (eds), 2001, Social Change, Blackwell Publishing in association with The Open University, Oxford.
Peter Hamilton and Kenneth Thompson (eds), 2002, The Uses of Sociology, Blackwell Publishing in association with The Open University, Oxford.
Tony Bennett and Diane Watson (eds), 2002, Understanding Everyday Life, Blackwell Publishing in association with The Open University, Oxford.
Major Themes in Advanced Industrialised Societies: A Reader, Kent University, Medway.
John O'Neill, 1998, The Market: Ethics, Knowledge and Politics, Routledge, London.
Larry Ray and Andrew Sayer (eds.), 1999, Culture and Economy: After the Cultural Turn, Sage Publications, London.
Russell Keat, 2000, Cultural Goods and the Limits of the Market, Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Andrew Sayer (b), 2005, The Moral Significance of Class, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Peter Corrigan, 1997, The Sociology of Consumption, Sage, London.
Tim Edwards, 2000, Contradictions of consumption: concepts, practices, and politics in consumer society, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Bob Jessop (a), 1990, State Theory: Putting Capitalist States in their Place, The Pennsylvania State University Press, Pennsylvania.
Bob Jessop (b), 2002, The Future of the Capitalist State, Polity, Cambridge.
David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds), 2003, The Global Transformations Reader: an introduction to the globalisation debate, 2nd edition, Polity, Cambridge.
William Outhwaite and Larry Ray, 2005, Social Theory and Postcommunism, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Leslie Holmes, 1997, Post-communism: an introduction, Polity, Oxford.
Richard Sakwa, 1999, Postcommunism, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Graham Smith, 1999, The Post-Soviet States: mapping the politics of transition, Arnold, London.
Andrew Dobson (ed), 1991, Green Reader, Deutsch, London.
Ash Amin (ed), 1994, Post-Fordism: a reader, Blackwell, Oxford.
M.S. Larson, 1977, The rise of professionalism: a sociological analysis, California University Press, California.
Sylvia Walby (a), 1986, Patriarchy at work: patriarchal and capitalist relations in employment, Polity Press.
Sylvia Walby (b), 1990, Theorising patriarchy, Blackwell, Oxford.
Anne Witz, 1992, Professions and Patriarchy, Routledge, London.
Don Slater, 1997, Consumer Culture and Modernity, Polity, Cambridge.
Celia Lury, 1996, Consumer Culture, Polity Cambridge.
Paul du Gay (ed), 1997, Cultures of Production/ Production of Cultures, Sage Publications in association with The Open University, London
Hugh Mackay (ed), 1997, Consumption and Everyday Life, Sage Publications in association with The Open University, London.
Kenneth Thompson (ed), 1997, Media and Cultural Regulation, Sage Publications in association with The Open University, London.
David Held (ed), 2000, A Globalising World? Culture, economics and politics, Routledge and The Open University, Bath.
Neil Smelser and Richard Swedberg (eds), 1994, The Handbook of Economic Sociology, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Mark Granovetter and Richard Swedberg (eds), 2001, The Sociology of Economic Life, 2nd Edition, Westview Press, Boulder.
Statement of PlagiarismPlagiarism is a very serious offence and is considered as cheating under University rules. Plagiarism includes the following: · Submission of work that is identical or substantially similar for assessment in more than one course, whether in the same department or in other departments. · Passing off work as yours that is really the work of others (whether other students, text from a web page you have found or from a published source). · Duplicating sentences or paragraphs from other works in whole or in part without accurate citation of the text being quoted and proper referencing of the source in the bibliography. In other words, the only time you should use the words of somebody else in your work is in the form of a direct quote. This should be either indented or should clearly be in quotation marks and should include a direct reference immediately after the quote ends (name, date: page number) e.g. (Harvey, 1989: 64). Direct quotes are accepted academic practice but should be used sparingly in your work. The reference from which the quote comes should then appear in your bibliography. e.g. Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity, Oxford, Blackwell. Plagiarism does not include: · Summarising the arguments of someone else in your own words and citing them as a reference · Using published academic work to help you develop your own argument In each case, though, you should still include a reference in your text to the things that you have read at the end of the relevant sentence or paragraph if you are referring directly to their work e.g. (Harvey, 1989). Disciplinary action will be taken under the university rules for plagiarism. |
Below you will find our guidelines for evaluating essays and examinations. Please note that these are guidelines. No two essay questions, let alone two essay answers, are the same. In addition, students are expected to improve across their years of study.
Outstanding (70% +)
An excellent understanding of material and contextualises it well; shows capability in handling ideas/theories/concepts/data; communicates clearly and effectively; shows insight and perceptiveness, a well-developed critical faculty and good judgment. A fresh and original, unusual or substantial contribution to the debate. Therefore, excellent work in all relevant respects.
· A mark in this range is given for an accomplished piece of work that offers a thorough, imaginative or highly original but appropriate answer to the question;
· Reading is demonstrated to be comprehensive and going beyond standard course material, bibliography is comprehensive;
· The essay is written in faultless prose with a convincing argument, structure and synthesis;
· A high degree of originality is shown in argument, methodology or presentation of data;
· The answer is imaginative and offers a novel and effective interpretation of the question;
· In rare cases where an essay makes an original contribution to sociological knowledge and is written to a publishable standard, a recognition of outstanding distinction will be given.
Very Good (65-69%)
Very good understanding of material and contextualises it well; tackles well ideas/theories/concepts/data; communicates clearly and effectively; shows insight and perceptiveness, a well-developed critical faculty and good judgment. A substantial contribution to the debate. Therefore, good work in all relevant respects, with only marginal weaknesses.
· the introduction is excellent, clearly and appropriately framing the essay as a whole;
· extensive and relevant readings are identified, outlined and located in an appropriate context with no serious omissions so that the essential points are identified and interrelated in a very good overall grasp of the topic in question and very good command of both the detail and the subtlety of the arguments;
· the relevant arguments and evidence are related together in a clear and critical manner that achieves a convincing overall synthesis, and also reveals elements of originality;
· the essay is very well organised, achieving an excellent balance between context, literatures, discussion, and synthesis, with convincing and well-argued conclusions;
· sound rationale for collecting data and other material, including use of specialised resources and/or gathering of original data; very good use of the data and material (where empirical analysis is required);
· the bibliography is extensive and well-presented.
Good (60-64%)
Shows a firm grasp of material and contextualises it, has good research and presentation skills, argues well and effectively, is able to criticise and evaluate material convincingly and appropriately. In short, good to very good work in most relevant respects, with few weaknesses.
· the introduction is good, clearly and appropriately framing the essay as a whole;
· the most important literatures are outlined and soundly located in an appropriate context with few serious omissions so that the essay presents a sound critical discussion of the topic based on a good overall grasp of the chosen readings;
· the relevant arguments and evidence are related together in a clear manner that achieves a good overall synthesis without being original;
· the essay is well organised, achieving a good balance between context, literatures, discussion, and synthesis with valid conclusions grounded in evidence;
· generally competent rationale and use of data collection methodology and good use of data, including specialised resources and/or some original data (empirical analysis is required);
· the bibliography is quite extensive and well presented.
Satisfactory (50-59%)
A competent essay that shows understanding of material and presents it satisfactorily. There is a coherent argument throughout and an adequate conclusion. In short, acceptable work in most relevant respects, but with some significant weaknesses.
· the introduction is adequate, providing a reasonable frame for the essay as a whole;
· the major approaches are outlined and adequately contextualised so that the major points are reasonably brought out and interrelated to reveal an adequate grasp of the topic but with a relatively unsystematic approach and some weaknesses in understanding and rigour;
· the relevant arguments and evidence are related together adequately, there is some attempt at synthesis but no originality, and there are some weaknesses in terms of the clarity of argument;
· the essay is adequately organised, achieving some balance between context, literatures, discussion, and synthesis, with broadly satisfactory conclusions;
· weak rationale for gathering data and materials, some problems with actual data and other material collection and its interpretation (where empirical analysis is required)
· the bibliography is adequate, reasonably clear, and well-presented.
Not satisfactory (41-49%)
Limited work in most relevant respects, with several significant weaknesses.
· the introduction is weak, providing only a limited frame for the essay as a whole;
· some relevant literatures are outlined, but this is limited, patchy, unclear, and/or not adequately contextualised so that, although some major points are brought out, there are significant gaps, misunderstandings, and/or little grasp of detail or subtlety;
· the relevant arguments and evidence are related together in a weak manner and thus the essay conveys neither a critical understanding nor a reasonable synthesis;
· the essay is poorly organised, with a poor balance between context, literatures, discussion, and synthesis but some attempt is made to draw conclusions ;
· there are significant problems with methodology for gathering material and its interpretation (applies where empirical analysis is required);
· the bibliography is limited and/or unclear and poorly presented.
Bare pass (40%)
EITHER generally unsatisfactory, inadequately planned and presented, with no or poor understanding but with some redeeming features. OR properly organised but more or less wholly irrelevant. In the former case, the work would have the following features
· the introduction is very weak, barely providing a frame for the essay as a whole;
· there is some mention of relevant literatures or approaches, but this outline is very patchy, unclear, and/or very inadequately placed in context with the result that the essays reveals little or no knowledge of their significance and fails to engage in critical discussion;
· the relevant arguments and evidence are not properly related together, resulting in an unsystematic approach, significant weaknesses in understanding and rigour, and no attempt at synthesis;
· the essay is poorly organised, with little or no structure, serious weaknesses in clarity, and little or no attempt to draw conclusions;
· limited ability to gather and summarize relevant data and other material or to interpret it (applies where empirical analysis is involved);
· the bibliography is very limited and/or unclear and poorly presented.
Poor and Fail (20-39%)
Inadequate work in most relevant respects, with many very serious weaknesses.
· the essay has a weak introduction, if any, providing little or no frame for the essay as a whole;
· there is little mention or understanding of relevant approaches so that they are presented in a highly restricted and unclear manner and/or with no sense of context;
· the relevant arguments and evidence are scarcely related together, and there is no proper synthesis;
· the essay lacks structure, is too short, is unclear, and conclusions are lacking or inadequate and ungrounded;
· no data, irrelevant data, or otherwise flawed data with inadequate rationales, if any, for data selection and overall methodology (applies where empirical analysis is required);
· the bibliography is non-existent or minimal and/or entirely unclear and inadequately presented.
Outright Fail (less than 19%)
Inadequate work in most relevant aspects, with many very serious weaknesses
· The essay has no introduction and no coherent structure throughout;
· There is no understanding of relevant approaches, the essay is incoherent on major themes and shows no understanding of the question;
· There is no understandable argument or proper synthesis;
· Structure is non-existent, the essay is very short, unclear and wholly lacking in conclusions;
· There is no supporting data, or an entirely inappropriate methodology has been used;
· No bibliography is presented
Grading Guidelines for Seminar ParticipationActive participation means that students are ready to articulate and explain their ideas, and listen and respond to others’ ideas. · ‘70% +’ – Students attend each lecture and seminar with questions about the lectures and readings. In engaged dialogues, they raise these questions for other students to discuss, and listen to contrary opinions. They initiate and develop critical issues concerning the seminar activities. They are well-structured and well-organised for the completion of their research projects. · ‘60-69%’ – Students complete their readings, but do not always reflect on the questions and issues raised during the lectures and seminars. Though they articulate their own views, they passively wait for others to initiate interesting issues. They are reasonably well organised for their own projects. · ‘50-59%’ – Students attend, prepare and listen attentively, but rarely enter into discussions. They are adequately prepared for their own projects. · ‘40-49%’ – Students are inconsistent in their attendance and preparations. They do not respect others’ contributions. They are also poorly prepared for their own projects. · ‘0-39%’ – Students are consistently ill-prepared and have poor attendance. They are rude and disruptive. They also fail to show any signs of organising their own projects. |
Guidelines for Writing Reflection EssaysBelow is a suggestion on how to structure your reflection essays. a) 1-2 paragraphs to summarise the article, and to state its key argument; b) 2-3 paragraphs to examine at least two points supporting the key argument; c) 2-3 paragraphs to investigate at least two counter-points against the key argument; and d) 1 paragraph to conclude, and evaluate the argument and the overall article. Please note this is only a guide, and that you can write more or less paragraphs on each of the sections. Please also begin each section by clearly stating in the opening sentence what you are going to do. For example: a) 'I shall summarise the article . . .' b) 'On one of the key argument of the article is . . .' c) 'There are several points supporting the key argument . . . ' d) 'There are several counter-points . . .' e) 'I shall conclude . . .'
|
Please note that I reserve the right to change the schedule of the meetings and topics as and when necessary.
Please look at the course website for additional information and notes about the course. Additional course information will be given during the semester.