Sensorveiledning NOR1403 høst 2019
Guidelines for examiners (final exam)
Course code and semester: NOR1403 Norwegian World Literature (Autumn 2019)
Examiners: Elisabeth Oxfeldt and Hans Kristian Rustad
Format: Oral exam
- Let us start by discussing [a primary text on the syllabus]. Could you place it in terms of the period during which it was written and published? – in terms of literary/aesthetic history and social or cultural concerns of the time period. Could you also talk about some of the literary devices in the text and discuss their effects? If we have read an article on the text: Could you sum up the main argument of the article?
- In your mid-term paper, you analyzed [a primary text]. Can you discuss some thematic similarities or differences between [this text] and [another text on the syllabus]?
- We have read several articles on Ibsen as a world author or as world literature (Tore Rem, Martin Puchner, Kirsten Shepherd-Barr). Do you remember some of the arguments? What makes Ibsen world literature?
- Can you talk about Jon Fosse and his play Someone Is Going to Come? What kind of dramatist is Fosse, what is the play about, and what distinguishes it stylistically?
- Many of the literary works on the syllabus contain some form of social critique. Can you talk about the social critique in The Model, A House in Norway, or Lucie?
- Discuss a poem we have read. What distinguishes it formally? Is there a relationship between the form and the topic of the poem? Do you recognize its theme from other texts on the syllabus? Can you compare based on thematic and aesthetic criteria?
The final grade reflects the extent to which the student has attained the following course learning outcomes:
- Analyze literary texts from cultural, historical and/or aesthetic perspectives.
- Compare literary texts based on thematic and/or aesthetic criteria.
- Contextualize Norwegian literary works that have entered the canon of world literature in terms of Norwegian history, literary history, and culture.
- Critically discuss the concept of “world literature” through writing and oral presentations.
These learning outcomes will serve as evaluation criteria during the oral exam (see also specific evaluation criteria below).
During the oral exam, the students will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
- Ability to discuss primary and secondary sources on the syllabus
- Understanding of key concepts in the course, e.g. genres, literary devices, world- literature, periods of literary history (national romanticism; modern break-through, realism, naturalism, symbolism; modernism).
- Ability to think independently and critically
- Ability to stay on subject and answer the questions
The evaluation will result in letter grades (see below).
The grading scale with letter values is a descending scale where A is the best grade, E the lowest pass grade and F is fail. The assessment is based on defined, qualitative criteria for each grade in the grading scale.
Below you find both the general and the subject-specific qualitative descriptions of the criteria used in the assessment of examinations.
A – Excellent
An excellent performance, clearly outstanding. The candidate demonstrates excellent judgement and a high degree of independent thinking.
Unsurpassed insight into the knowledge content that is defined for the subject. Corresponding ability in critical evaluation and problem solving.
B – Very good
A very good performance. The candidate demonstrates sound judgement and a very good degree of independent thinking.
Very good insight into the knowledge content that is defined for the subject. Corresponding ability in critical evaluation and problem solving.
C – Good
A good performance in most areas. The candidate demonstrates a reasonable degree of judgement and independent thinking in the most important areas.
Good insight into the knowledge content that is defined for the subject. Corresponding ability in critical evaluation and problem solving.
D – Satisfactory
A satisfactory performance, but with significant shortcomings. The candidate demonstrates a limited degree of judgement and independent thinking.
Fairly good insight into the knowledge content that is defined for the subject. Corresponding ability in critical evaluation and problem solving.
E – Sufficient
A performance that meets the minimum criteria, but no more. The candidate demonstrates a very limited degree of judgement and independent thinking.
A certain insight into the knowledge content that is defined for the subject. Corresponding ability in critical evaluation and problem solving.
F – Fail
A performance that does not meet the minimum academic criteria. The candidate demonstrates an absence of both judgement and independent thinking.