Lectures, master classes and training sessions

Reading and analysis of articles / reports of interest

Presentation / oral presentation of works

Participation in activities and assignments

Debates

Tutorials

Personal study

Annotation: within the schedule set by the centre or degree programme, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses or modules through questionnaires.

This section of the Study Guide contains all information related to the process of evaluation of the module.

Assessment of the module: In order to pass the module, the following aspects are taken into account:

- Regular assistance and participation: First, to ensure that the expected learning results are obtained, we consider it fundamental that students assist the classes and participate actively in them. For this reason, the extent to which students participate in classes, presentations, discussions, and training sessions is evaluated.This participation is considered in the final note for each course.

- Continued assessment of the blocks: Second, each course or block proposes one or multiple activities that allow a continued assessment of the learning process. The activities can vary from a written test to a presentation in class, computer lab assignments, a review of a few articles or chapters, or a short essay, among other activities. The deadlines for these activities are indicated by the lecturers. Jointly, the evaluations for the different courses that make up the module (30%) and the active participation in these courses (20%) constitute 50% of the final grade of the module.

- Evaluation of the final paper for the module: Last, the grade obtained on a final paper constitutes the remaining 50% of the final grade for the module. In the case of the Research Seminar modules (Common Module II), the final individual paper of the module consists of an in-class practical test covering the structure, style, content, and citation of scientific texts. This test will take place during the final session of Projects II, and the exercises will assess the skills learned throughout the course.

Each lecturer determines the way in which papers are to be submitted (through the Campus Virtual, by e-mail) and informs students in the beginning of their block regarding the procedure and date of revision of grades. The lecturers communicate the results of the evaluation through the Campus Virtual and establish a period of consultation before they communicate the grades to the coordinator of the module. The student can request a tutor meeting with their lecturers throughout the course if they wish to clarify some point of the contents of the course.

It is essential to respect the deadlines.

General criteria: Following the evaluation regulations of studies at the UAB, the final qualification will be graded at a 0-10 scale with a single decimal. To pass the course, a minimum final grade of 5.0 is needed, as a result of the assessment procedure explained above. Students will receive the qualification \"Not evaluable\" if they have submitted less than 30% of the activities of evaluation. In exceptional, well justified cases, the Committee of the Master Program may propose an alternative procedure for the evaluation. Once the subject is passed, it cannot be subjected to a new evaluation. The programming of assessment activities cannot be modified unless an exceptional and well justified reason exists for this, in which case a new program is proposed during the term. Students who engage in misconduct (plagiarism, copying, personation, etc.) in an assessment activity will receive a mark of “0” for the activity in question. In the case of misconduct in more than one assessment activity, the students involved will be given a final mark of “0” for the subject. Students may not retake assessment activities in which they are found to have engaged in misconduct. Plagiarism is considered to mean presenting all or part of an author’s work, whether published in print or in digital format, as one’s own, i.e., without citing it. Copying is considered to mean reproducing all or a substantial part of another student’s work. In cases of copying in which it is impossible to determine which of two students has copied the work of the other, both will be penalised. Please see the documentation of the UAB about plagiarism on: http://wuster.uab.es/web_argumenta_obert/unit_20/sot_2_01.html.

Evaluation in case of face-to-face evaluation is not possible: In the event that tests or exams cannot be taken on site, they will be adapted to an online format made available through the UAB’s virtual tools (original weighting will be maintained). Homework, activities and class participation will be carried out through forums, wikis and/or discussion on Teams, etc. Lecturers will ensure that students are able to access these virtual tools or will offer them feasible alternatives.

On carrying out each evaluation activity, lecturers will inform students (on Moodle) of the procedures to be followed for reviewing all grades awarded, and the date on which such a review will take place.

Students will obtain a Not assessed/Not submitted course grade unless they have submitted more than 30% of the assessment items.

This subject/module does not incorporate single assessment

Evaluation of blocks

Projects II: Scientific communication: The final project of the module is compulsory in the Projects II block

The module's individual final assignment consists of an in-class practical test covering the structure, style, content, and citation of scientific texts. This test will take place during the final session of Projects II, and the exercises will assess the skills learned throughout the course. These skills prepare students for writing their Master's thesis (TFM).

Methodology for data analysis: The evaluation of the block will be carried out by means of a categorisation and coding exercise based on an example of an interview transcript by the teacher. The last part of the exercise will consiste of a projection of the object of study that motivated the interview on the basis of the themes an sub-themes (categories) identified. The systematicity, conherence and complexity ofthe analysis operations applied will be assessed.

Social Network Analysis: The evaluation of the course will be based firstly on the individual presentation on the virtual campus of each of the four practices carried out during the workshops. Secondly, participation in the sessions and the presentation through the virtual campus of a brief contribution to the subject studied will be taken into account. This contribution can be a text of 600 words or a presentation of a maximum of 10 minutes on these two questions: What conclusions have been drawn from the topics studied? What new applications are suggested?

International Migrations and processes of mixticity: In order to be assessed, attendance at least 80% of the sessions is required, as in the rest of the blocks. The course mark (50%) is obtained from a paper/essay where the relationship (similarities, differences, and open questions) between the case studies on mixedness discussed in class is critically examined, using the required and supplementary course bibliography as support. Document format: Word. length: min. 2.500 and max 3.000 (without Bibliography and Annexes). Typographical format: margins 2.5. Times 12 or Arial 11 font. 1.5 line spacing. Assessment criteria: Originality of the topic/issue addressed, Suitability of the course content and sources consulted, Organization and structure, level of writing and expression, Ability to identify key aspects and critical analysis.

Research laboratory: Classroom practice 40%, Oral presentation practice 50% and Participation activities 10%.

This subject allows the use of AI technologies exclusively for support tasks such as [***bibliographic or content-based searches, text correction or translations, where applicable]. In the case of subjects in a Modern Languages degree, use of translation must be specifically authorised by the teacher. Other specific situations may be contemplated, as deemed appropriate by the teacher.

The student must clearly (i) identify which parts have been generated using AI technology; (ii) specify the tools used; and (iii) include a critical reflection on how these have influenced the process and final outcome of the activity.

Lack of transparency regarding the use of AI in the assessed activity will be considered academic dishonesty; the corresponding grade may be lowered, or the work may even be awarded a zero. In cases of greater infringement, more serious action may be taken.