Bachelor's Degree Final Project
Code: 107012Credits: 12
| Degree programme | Type | Course |
|---|---|---|
| Sociocultural Gender Studies | TFE | 4 |
Contact lecturer
- Name :
- Bruna Alvarez Mora
- Email :
- bruna.alvarez@uab.cat
Teaching staff
- Ingrid Agud Morell
Group languages
You can consult this information at the end of the document.
Prerequisites
Two thirds of the study plan must have been passed, that is, 120 credits, in order to enrol in the FDP. The work is carried out throughout the entire course, with the submission of four pieces of evidence.
Objectives
The sole objective of the subject is the preparation and presentation of an academic work that allows for a global and synthetic assessment of the level of achievement of the specific and transversal competencies of the degree by the students.
This work includes two training activities:
1st) The completion of an academic essay developing a specific research topic within the framework of the subjects included in the Degree's Study Plan. Exceptionally, other presentation formats will be accepted, but in all cases they must be accompanied by a written presentation.
2nd) The public defence of the work before a panel specifically constituted for this purpose.
Learning outcomes
- CM33 (To distinguish the effects of sex and gender variables in empirical analyses.) To distinguish the effects of sex and gender variables in empirical analyses.
- CM34 (Assess and correct your own work.) Assess and correct your own work.
- CM40 (Devise innovative proposals based on gender and feminist studies in order to provide an effective response to the needs and demands of society.) Devise innovative proposals based on gender and feminist studies in order to provide an effective response to the needs and demands of society.
- CM41 (Work cooperatively by incorporating guidance from expert committees in different disciplines.) Work cooperatively by incorporating guidance from expert committees in different disciplines.
- KM63 (Explain how gender inequality intersects with other areas of inequality (class, race, sexuality and gender identity/expression, disability, etc.).) Explain how gender inequality intersects with other areas of inequality (class, race, sexuality and gender identity/expression, disability, etc.).
- KM64 (Apply the concepts and methodologies you have learned in order to deconstruct gender relations and representations in different socio-cultural spheres.) Apply the concepts and methodologies you have learned in order to deconstruct gender relations and representations in different socio-cultural spheres.
- KM65 (Precisely outline the hypotheses and objectives for a project in the field of socio-cultural gender studies.) Precisely outline the hypotheses and objectives for a project in the field of socio-cultural gender studies.
- KM66 (Evaluate the results of applying social policies with a gender perspective.) Evaluate the results of applying social policies with a gender perspective.
- KM67 (Develop proposals for different situations (school, family, work, community) and collectives that promote gender equality and the prevention of gender violence.) Develop proposals for different situations (school, family, work, community) and collectives that promote gender equality and the prevention of gender violence.
- SM54 (Work autonomously to find, select and manage information, both among structured sources (databases, bibliographies, specialised journals) and from information published on the internet.) Work autonomously to find, select and manage information, both among structured sources (databases, bibliographies, specialised journals) and from information published on the internet.
- SM55 (Express yourself using the appropriate standards for an academic paper.) Express yourself using the appropriate standards for an academic paper.
- SM56 (Orally defend the results of a paper before a board of experts using non-sexist language.) Orally defend the results of a paper before a board of experts using non-sexist language.
- SM57 (Use technical and interpretative vocabulary specific to the field of research to which the project belongs.) Use technical and interpretative vocabulary specific to the field of research to which the project belongs.
Contents
The end of degree dissertation (TFG) is a project is geared to the development of a basic-level research or an innovation developed in the professional field of sociocultural gender studies. In either case, the TFG will be required to have the corresponding sections of a research project and will have to showcase the specific and general competences acquired in the degree. Multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary work will be valued, as well as a regard that problematizes the building of knowledge and that poses relevant questions and challenges to the area of sociocultural gender studies. Moreover, the TFG may become a space of social contribution in which to materialize the academy-society dialogue and, with critical thinking and ethical value, propose projects that are analytical, experimental, artistic, narrative, activist, etc. with actions that give back to society. It is for this reason that different formats will be accepted according to the specific needs of each TFG, from empiric research to experimental writing or audiovisual productions, the assembly of an exhibition, the preparation of a comic book or a fanzine. In any of the cases, it is the Student that will propose their project to the committee that will assess its viability and will give appropriate guidelines to follow.
The TFG is conceived as a primarily autonomous activity done around a topic agreed upon with the professor that will supervise the assignment. In principle, the final TFG document must be different and individual to each Student. Therefore, no projects showing identical content to another will be accepted. This does not imply that students may not share knowledge or take part in other projects. Exceptionally, commissions will allow a TFG done by two people given that it is announced from the first stage and that the pair work is justified by the specific demands of their project. In this case, both students will receive the same qualification.
The elaboration of the TFG is designed as a continuous process across the entire academic course, and it is divided into 4 stages: an initial one, in which the work is specified and formulated, a developmental stage and a finalizing and closing stage that entails the written submission followed by an oral defense.
TFG ORIENTATION
Students can choose between three modalities to approach and structure their TFG: the professionally-oriented option, the research-oriented (which can be an empirical research or a bibliographic revision and meta-analysis one) and the action-participation option. Regardless of the chosen modality,students may agree with the tutor upon the presentation method: an essay, a scientific article or a cultural product (see next section).
All projects must present a reference section (following APA rules). APA rules are available onhttps://ddd.uab.cat/pub/recdoc/2016/145881/citrefapa_a2016.pdf
1. PROFESSIONALLY-ORIENTED MODALITY: Development of an intervention/innovation project in a specific context.
It consists on the development of a feminist action proposal in a specific context following a study of that particular reality. This modality should include either the design and/or implementation of a project in a professional field, or the implementation and assessment of an already-existing project (it must be executed and, thus, evaluate its results and specific conclusions). These can also implement learning and service (ApS) projects.
In the case that the TFG is contextualized in the same center or institution where the external practicum takes place, students may use specific context analysis together with other data. However, under no circumstance can the two reports be written with the same content. That is to say, the practicum project and the TFG cannot be the same in any of their sections. This will be considered self-plagiarism and, therefore, the TFG will be a fail.
2. RESEARCH-ORIENTED MODALITY:
- empirical research project
- It consists on an analytical project that will include a theoretical framework, a working hypothesis or specific objectives, an empirical stage with its results, discussion and conclusions. This modality should include research methodologies and basic techniques (research, selection and use of tools to gather information, as well as an analysis and interpretation of the information).
- Examination based on systematic bibliographic revision
- Consists on a study of theoretical Foundation (essay or monographic) that entails a theoretical, critical o comparative analysis as a base for the detailed exposition or argumentation around a subject. This modality must include a thorough bibliographic revision on the topic and an explicit discussion on the theoretical framework and available knowledge.
3. SERVICE-LEARNING MODALITY:
Consists on developing a research or intervention with the participation of social entities for which the TFG responds to a necessity of these subjects. This modality should include an observation by the own entity or by the student that describes the needs detected, as well as a design that includes methodologies of action-participation to offer solutions. The Service-Learning Final Project must be formalized through the Service-Learning Office of the UAB, via this link: Alumnat - Aprenentatge i Servei - UAB Barcelona
The Final Degree Project (FDP) is a project oriented towards the development of basic-level research or innovation carried out in the professional field of sociocultural gender studies. In all cases, the FDP must include sections typical of a research project and must serve to bring out the specific and transversal competencies associated with the degree. The multidisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity of the work will be valued, as well as a perspective that problematises how knowledge is constructed and that raises relevant questions and challenges within sociocultural gender studies. Likewise, the FDP can become a space for social contribution, from which to materialise the academia-society dialogue and, from critical thinking and ethical commitment, to propose analytical, experimental, artistic, narrative, activist projects... of actions that give back to society. For this reason, various formats are admitted, depending on what each FDP requires, ranging from empirical research to experimental writing, or the production of an audiovisual piece, musical work, exhibition setup, comic book or fanzine. In all cases, the student will present the proposal to the committee, which will assess its viability and provide relevant guidance.
The FDP is carried out through a largely autonomous activity, based on a topic agreed upon with the teaching staff who will supervise its completion through the assigned committee. In principle, the final FDP document must be different and individualised for each student; therefore, projects that present any section that is identical to that of another submitted project will not be accepted. This, however, does not prevent students from sharing knowledge and doing part of the research together. Exceptionally, the committees may admit an FDP carried out by two people, provided that this is announced from the first piece of evidence and that the pair work is justified by the nature of the proposed FDP. In this case, the group members will receive the same grade.
The FDP is conceived as a continuous process throughout the entire academic year, with 4 different phases: an initial phase, in which the work is specified and planned; a development phase; and a finalisation and closing phase, which involves the written submission, followed by the oral defence.
The student may choose between three different typologies when focusing and structuring the FDP: the professionalising option, the research option (which can be empirical research, bibliographic review or meta-analysis) and the action-participation option. Regardless of the chosen option, they may agree with their tutor on whether to present it in the form of a report, a scientific article, or a cultural artefact (see following section).
All projects must include a references section (referenced in the text and cited according to APA style). The APA style guidelines can be consulted at: https://www.uab.cat/ca/biblioteques/ccr/citacions-bibliografia
1. PROFESSIONALISING OPTION: Formulation of an intervention/innovation project in a particular context.
This consists of developing a feminist action proposal in a specific context, based on a diagnostic study of that reality. This modality should include the design and/or implementation of a project in a professional field, or the implementation and evaluation of an existing project (which must be carried out, and therefore the results and specific conclusions must be assessed). Service-Learning (SL) projects and research/intervention projects carried out using participatory methodologies may also be implemented.
In the case of FDP projects that are set in the same centre or institution where students carry out their external work placements, they may benefit from the context analysis and other data; but in NO CASE may both reports be written with the same content. That is to say, the placement report and the FDP cannot be identical in any of their sections. This will be considered self-plagiarism, and therefore a fail in the FDP.
2. RESEARCH OPTION
Empirical research proposal.
This consists of an analytical work proposal that will include a theoretical framework, a working hypothesis or objectives, an empirical section with its results, discussion and conclusions. This modality should include basic research methodologies and techniques (searching, selecting and using tools to capture information, as well as analysing and interpreting information).
In-depth study based on systematic bibliographic review.
This consists of a theoretical grounding study (essay or monograph) that involves a theoretical, critical or comparative analysis as a basis for an in-depth exposition or argumentation on a topic. This modality must include a broad bibliographic review on the topic under study and an explicit discussion in relation to theoretical frameworks and available knowledge.
3. SERVICE-LEARNING OPTION
This consists of developing research or intervention with the participation of social organisations, where the FDP responds to a need of these organisations. This modality should include the diagnosis carried out by the organisation itself or by the student, describing the identified needs, and a design that includes action-participation methodologies to address them.
The Service-Learning FDP must be formalised through the UAB Service-Learning Office, via the following link: https://www.uab.cat/en/service-learning
Learning activities and methodology
| Title | Hours | ECTS | Learning outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Writing of the Degree Project | 279 | 11.16 | CM33, CM34, CM40, CM41, KM63, KM64, KM65, KM66, KM67, SM54, SM55, SM56, SM57 |
| Group tutoring and briefings | 10 | 0.4 | CM33, CM34, CM40, CM41, KM63, KM64, KM65, KM66, KM67, SM54, SM55, SM56, SM57 |
| One-by-one tutoring | 10 | 0.4 | CM33, CM34, CM40, CM41, KM63, KM64, KM65, KM66, KM67, SM54, SM55, SM56, SM57 |
There are no teaching activities in the classroom.
The teaching methodology is based on:
Guided activities: 4h (group tutorials, informative sessions ...)
Supervised activities: 10h (individual tutorials)
Autonomous activities: 135h
Students on an Erasmus stay during the third year can carry out the TFG remotely, except for the oral presentation, which must be in person.
The course will have a general calendar for the assignment of the topic/Commission/ tutor, the supervision and the evaluation, which will be published at the beginning of the course in the MOODLE classroom. The possibility of working with ApS (Aprendizaje Servicio, Service Learning) methodology will be offered.
If the presentation cannot be done in person, their format will be adapted (without altering its evaluation) to the possibilities offered by the UAB's virtual tools. Efforts will be made to ensure student access to such resources or other alternatives within their reach.
Assessment
Continuous assessment activities
| Title | Weight | Hours | ECTS | Learning outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preparing process and writing | 70% | 0 | 0 | CM33, CM34, CM40, CM41, KM63, KM64, KM65, KM66, KM67, SM54, SM55, SM56, SM57 |
| Public presentation and discussion | 30% | 1 | 0.04 | CM33, CM34, CM40, CM41, KM63, KM64, KM65, KM66, KM67, SM54, SM55, SM56, SM57 |
The evaluation of the Final Degree Project will follow the procedure established in the "Protocol for the subject 'Final Degree Project'" (https://www.uab.cat/doc/Protocol-TFG), whereby a weighted average will be calculated between:
• the written essay (70%), assessed by the committee through two pieces of evidence. The third piece of evidence (the report) will be assessed by the tutor and a second member of the committee, who will also assess the oral presentation;
• the public defence of the project (30% of the final grade).
| EVIDENCE | DATES | VALUE |
| Informative TFG meeting and tutor assignment (in-person) | 16 September, 11:30 AM – 2:00 PM |
|
| I. Proposal/Approach | 1st committee meeting (between October and January) | 10% (1 point) |
| II. Development | 2nd committee meeting (between February and April) | 20% (2 points) |
| III. Final submission (TFG Report) | 7–11 June | 40% (4 points) |
| IV. Presentation | 3rd committee meeting, subdivided into panels (approximately 1–2 July) | 30% (3 points) |
This subject does not provide for a single assessment system.
The Final Degree Project has no resit/retake option, as established in the "Protocol for the subject 'Final Degree Project'" of the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters.
A specific committee will award, where applicable, the corresponding Honours (Matrícula d'Honor).
The final report cannot be submitted without the tutor's approval.
Characteristics of the assessment evidence
*Evidence 1. Proposal/Approach*
The 1st assessment evidence is the document presenting the project to be developed in the FDP. This document will be presented to the Committee, and must describe the approach of the FDP, in the chosen modality, and what its objectives will be, understanding that it is a proposal that will evolve throughout the course. After the meeting with the Committee, it will be completed with the tutor, mentioning the work plan proposed to follow, as well as the theoretical framework, methodology, and bibliography intended to be used. This document will be the first piece of evidence to be assessed.
Evidence 2. Development
In this 2nd assessment evidence, the development of the project must be presented to the Committee, based on what was set out in the first evidence and taking into account the indications given in the assessment of the previous evidence as well as in the tutorials. From this second meeting, a more precise document will emerge regarding the theoretical framework and methodology, as well as all the fundamental aspects of the work (bibliographic research, fieldwork, etc.).
Evidence 3 (Final Report or FDP Report)
This 3rd evidence is the FDP Report. It may be written in Catalan or Spanish. The FDP Report will be assessed by the tutor, in agreement with another member of the committee (who will be present at the oral presentation). The FDP must be original and unpublished. Should the student commit any irregularity that could lead to a significant variation in the grade of an assessment activity (such as plagiarism), this assessment activity will be graded with 0, regardless of any disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated.
Formats of the FDP Report
Regardless of the FDP option chosen, the 3rd assessment evidence, which corresponds to the final FDP Report, can be presented in two different formats:
1. REPORT FORMAT: The student presenting the FDP in this format must follow the following formal presentation requirements:
- Length of approximately 70,000 characters (including spaces) (approximately 20/25 pages) – Bibliography and appendices section separate, where complementary information will be included (not part of the main body of the work).
- The cover page must include:
- Author's name
- FDP title
- Degree studied by the student
- Tutor's name and department
- Committee
- Academic year
After the cover page, an index of the FDP with page numbers must be included, and the work must be correctly paginated. An abstract in Catalan, Spanish, and English must also be included.
2. SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE FORMAT: The student choosing to present the FDP in this format must follow a presentation policy similar to what a scientific or popularisation journal might require from authors. The aim is to simulate that the student has to submit the text for publication. For this purpose, the following generic guidelines are proposed:
- Length of approximately 30,000 characters (including spaces) (approximately 10-12 DIN A4 pages).
- Abstract of 7 or 8 lines in Catalan or Spanish, plus the translation of the abstract into English.
- List of between 5 and 8 keywords.
- Bibliography section, cited in the text according to APA standards.
- The following data must be included: name and surname(s), email address.
- The tutor's name and department must also be included.
- Structure: introduction, definition of the context, theoretical approach, presentation of methodology or proposed planning, results obtained, conclusions and final assessments.
At the end of the text, diagrams, tables, graphs, photographs, and video or audio recordings may be attached to make the article's content more comprehensible.
3. CULTURAL ARTEFACT FORMAT: In the development of the FDPs for this degree, students are invited to explore, experiment and innovate with new narrative formats, in accordance with the topic, context, and theoretical-methodological approach of the work. In this case, the adoption of artistic, literary, communicative and/or activist devices is justified, such as the creation of an audiovisual piece, musical productions, exhibition, comic, poetry, novel, artistic installation, website, theatrical piece, model, campaign, educational or outreach material, among other possibilities.
- The guidelines for the creation of the cultural artefact will be agreed with the tutor and adapted in each case to the chosen artistic, literary, communicative and/or activist genre.
- The artefact will be accompanied by a brief report with a maximum length of approximately 30,000 characters (including spaces) (10-12 pages), following the guidelines required for the report format.
-
Evidence 4 (Oral Presentation of the FDP)
The FDP presentation will be made before a panel consisting of 2 members of the Committee (one knows the report and the other does not necessarily), who are in no case the tutor. The student has 15 minutes, and then the panel has 10 minutes to ask any questions they deem relevant. This panel will only assess the oral presentation of the work and not the written document. Since the defences are public, in addition to the panel and the students summoned, family, friends, students, or other teaching staff who wish to do so may attend as audience, provided that the schedules and procedures of the FDP defence are respected. Students are required to attend the entire FDP presentation session on the day they are assigned.
EVIDENCE 1: 10%
| Criteria | Excellent | Satisfactory | Sufficient | Insufficient |
| Relevance of the topic (Max. 0.25) | Relevant within sociocultural gender studies, problematises knowledge | Relevant, but lacking explicit problematisation | Gender-related topic but too generic | No clear connection to gender issues |
| Objectives (Max. 0.25) | Clear and well-formulated. The student has defined achievable and coherent objectives | Their description could be improved. Objectives are general but feasible | Vaguely stated, and/or incoherent. Objectives are diffuse or unrealistic | Absent or incomprehensible. No defined objectives |
| Work plan (Max. 0.25) | Sequenced, scheduled and feasible | Sequenced but lacking detail | Schematic or unrealistic | Non-existent |
| Initial bibliography (Max. 0.25) | Up-to-date, relevant sources with a gender perspective | Adequate but limited sources | Sources that are too general or insufficiently academic | No bibliography or completely inadequate |
| Mentions how AI has been used | (qualitative assessment by the committee) |
|
|
|
EVIDENCE 2 (20%)
| Criteria | Excellent | Satisfactory | Sufficient | Insufficient |
| Incorporation of previous feedback (Max. 0.5) | Critically integrates all suggestions | Coherently integrates most suggestions | Superficially integrates some suggestions | Does not incorporate any |
| Development of the theoretical framework (Max. 0.5) | Solid, with dialogue between authors | Correct but lacks depth | Schematic or with gaps | Very poor or absent |
| Methodology (Max. 0.5) | Clear, appropriate to the type of FDP (research, professionalising or Service-Learning) | Defined but lacks specificity | Confusing or poorly aligned with the approach | Non-existent |
| Progress in research / proposal (Max. 0.5) | Evident, with examples or analysis excerpts | Evident but still underdeveloped | Minimal or poorly documented progress | No progress compared to Evidence 1 |
| Mentions how AI has been used | (qualitative assessment by the committee) |
|
|
|
EVIDENCE 3: final report (40%)
| Criteria | Excellent | Satisfactory | Sufficient | Insufficient |
| Theoretical framework (Max. 0.5) | Solid, up-to-date and with a gender perspective | Correct but could be improved | Basic or with gaps | Absent or inadequate |
| Methodology (Max. 0.5) | Clear, appropriate and well-justified | Defined but poorly justified | Confusing or inappropriate | Non-existent |
| Analysis (Max. 0.5) | In-depth, critical and well-argued | Correct but superficial | Overly descriptive or limited | Absent or erroneous |
| Results or proposal (Max. 0.5) | Clearly presented and relevant | Presented but not sufficiently developed | Unclear or incomplete | Non-existent |
| Conclusions (Max. 0.5) | Engage with the theory and open up new questions | Correct but too general | Poorly argued or weak | Absent or contradictory |
| Overall coherence (Max. 0.5) | All parts connect with each other | Good coherence, minor disconnections | Acceptable but with some disconnected parts | Incoherent or contradictory |
| Structure and length (Max. 0.25) | Meets the format requirements (index, pages, abstracts) | Meets the format, but with some errors | Does not follow the specified criteria | Does not meet the proposed format |
| Citation and references (APA) (Max. 0.25) | Excellent | Minor errors | Recurring errors | Does not follow APA format or constitutes plagiarism |
| Inclusive language and linguistic quality (Max. 0.25) | Excellent | Good, with minor errors | Acceptable but with shortcomings | Unacceptable |
| Originality (Max. 0.25) | Original and own work | Notable originality | Repetitive | Not original at all |
| Mentions how AI has been used | (qualitative assessment by the committee) |
|
|
|
EVIDENCE 4: oral presentation (30%)
| Criteria | Excellent | Satisfactory | Sufficient | Insufficient |
| Structure of the presentation (Max. 0.5) | Introduction, development and conclusion clearly differentiated and balanced | Structured but with some imbalance | Lacks clarity in structure | Disorganised or incomprehensible |
| Clarity and communication (Max. 0.5) | Clear, fluent and well-paced for the time allotted (15') | Clear but with some hesitation or doubt | Comprehensible but not very fluent | Unintelligible or incomplete |
| Use of supporting materials (Max. 0.5) | Effective supports, well integrated | Correct but not very creative | Not very relevant or confusing | Absent or counterproductive |
| Synthesis skills (Max. 0.5) | Highlights the key points (objectives, methodology, results, contribution) | Identifies most key aspects | Synthesis too long or too short | Does not synthesise, reads or rambles |
| Response to committee questions (Max. 0.5) | Argues, defends the proposal and honestly acknowledges limitations | Responds correctly but without depth | Hesitates or responds in overly general terms | Unable to respond or freezes (0) |
| Ethical and critical commitment (Max. 0.5) | Reflects on the social impact of the FDP and the academia-society dialogue | Mentions it but does not delve deeper | Only mentions it if asked | Does not consider it relevant |
| Mentions how AI has been used | (qualitative assessment by the committee) |
|
|
|
Bibliography
Specific bibliography will be given by each DP Commission.
Software
Campus Virtual
Word processing (with the possibility of conversion to Word and pdfs).
Pdf reader
Power point or similar.
TEAMS
As well as any software that the specific characteristics of the proposed Final Degree Project require.
Free software is welcome, as long as the documents can be delivered in the required format.
The use of AI will be assessed in each evaluation rubric, as described in Model 2:
Model 2 - Restricted use: Allowed only for support tasks (bibliographic search, proofreading or translation) according to the teacher's criteria. The student must identify the generated parts, specify the tools and include a critical reflection. Lack of transparency will result in a 0.
Course groups and languages
The information provided is provisional until November 30. After this date, you will be able to consult the language of each group through this link. To access the information, you will need to enter the course CODE
| Type of teaching | Group | Language | Semester | Shift |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (TFG) Treball de fi de grau | 99 | Catalan | annual | morning-mixed |