TEACHING DOSSIER KERRY MCKENZIE CONTENTS List of Courses Taught 2 Possible Course Offerings 3 Evidence of Teaching Quality 4 Teaching Referees 9 Sample Syllabi 10 1. Physics and the Metaphysics of Fundamentality (senior / graduate) 2. Philosophy and Science (introductory) 3. Topics in Epistemology: Theory and Evidence (senior) 1/10
LIST OF COURSES TAUGHT SUMMARY OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE As Lecturer and Course Leader PHIL667.5 / 565.4 PHYSICS AND THE METAPHYSICS OF FUNDAMENTALITY, Graduate and advanced undergraduate seminar, University of Calgary, Summer 2013. PHIL367 SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY, Undergraduate course on philosophy of science (covering method, demarcation and realism), University of Calgary, Winter 2013. PHIL2402 TOPICS IN EPISTEMOLOGY: THEORY AND EVIDENCE, Undergraduate course on inductive knowledge (covering inductive methodology, Bayesianism, probability and decision theory), University of Leeds, Winter 2012. As Tutor/Teaching Assistant (responsible for preparing tutorials, running tutorials and marking; all courses taught at University of Leeds and 1- semester long unless indicated): Upper-level Philosophy REALISM AND ANTIREALISM (2009-10 and 2010-11); HOW SCIENCE EXPLAINS THE WORLD (2009-10); LAWS OF NATURE, CAUSATION AND EXPLANATION (2010-11); PHILOSOPHY OF PSYCHOLOGY (2008-09; 2nd year psychologists). First-year Philosophy REALISM AND ANTI-REALISM (2009-10 and 2010-11); INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY (2011-12); INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY (2007-08 and 2008-09); INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS (2007-08 and 2008-09); INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY (2007-08); PHILOSOPHY OF MIND (2007-08); HOW SCIENCE WORKS (2008-09 and 2010-11). Medical Ethics (taught in Faculty of Medicine) MEDICAL ETHICS (Semesters 1&2, 2010-11 and 2011-12; 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th -year medics); CAMPUS TO CLINIC (Semesters 1 & 2, 2010-11 and 2011-12; 1st year medics). LIFE CYCLE (Semesters 1 &2, 2010-11 and 2011-12; 4th year medics) 2/10
POSSIBLE COURSE OFFERINGS Those for which I have previous teaching experience are marked with a star. General Philosophy of Science (Graduate*, Advanced* & Introductory*) Evidence, Induction and Confirmation (Graduate, Advanced* & Introductory*) Laws of Nature, Causation and Explanation (Graduate, Advanced* & Introductory*) Scientific Realism (Graduate, Advanced* & Introductory*) Metaphysics (broadly construed) (Advanced* & Introductory*) Fundamentality (Graduate* & Advanced*) Metametaphysics (Graduate*, Advanced* and Introductory) Philosophy of Physics (Graduate*, Advanced* & Introductory) Introduction to History of Philosophy: Descartes and Locke (Introductory*) Philosophy of Psychology (Advanced & Introductory*) Philosophy of Gender (Introductory: will have taught this by Winter 2014) Philosophy of Social Science (Advanced and Introductory*) Mass, Madness and Masculinity: An Introduction to Social Constructivism (Introductory) Logic (Introductory) Philosophy 101* I am prepared to supervise students in the philosophy of science, metaphysics of physics, and other areas of metaphysics related to fundamentality or naturalism. 3/10
EVIDENCE OF TEACHING QUALITY 1 INSTRUCTOR UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL PHIL367: Science and Philosophy (University of Calgary, Winter 2013) Role: Full responsibility, including for course design. Overall rating of the course Overall instruction = 6.33 ± 0.9 (out of 7) Some student comments: Excellent fascinating material. Dealt with one troublesome class member very effectively. Very well communicated. Good, clear intuitive explanations of complex topics. 1 Original sources and full evaluation reports can be supplied on request. 4/10
Absolutely amazing. Very enthusiastic, committed and overall just great. It was very engaging for me and made me question a lot of my previous beliefs. Love the way Dr. McKenzie teaches; fit very well with my learning style. Love the course; very engaging. Great professor; top ten for sure. One of the best profs I have ever had. Incredible prof. PHIL2402: Topics in Epistemology: Theory and Evidence (University of Leeds, Winter 2012) Role: Full responsibility, except for grading. 5/10
Some student comments: The lectures were interesting, well applied to examples in the real world. Its importance of what we were learning was evident, and I feel the skills learnt as made my critical analysis of events has improved upon completing the module. The teaching this year has been really good; Kerry was engaging and the examples used to illustrate points in lectures were interesting and entertaining. She was a really capable substitute to fill Juha's boots while he's away from teaching. This module was really well taught. The lectures were clear and delivered 6/10
in a good style, the topics were very well organized. V. enjoyable module. GRADUATE / SENIOR UNDERGRADUATE LEVEL PHIL 667.5: Physics and the Metaphysics of Fundamentality (University of Calgary, Summer 2013) Role: Course designer, seminar leader / lecturer, grader & course convener Some Student Comments: You and your course was an exceptionally valuable experience for me. Thank you very much for all your dedication. As my first graduate level course, 667.5 has been very challenging, but I have found it very rewarding. It has forced me to stretch my mind, and like all good education it has changed my view of the world. Taking your course has confirmed to me that I made the right decision in returning to academia. Thanks again for a really awesome seminar. I feel as though I learned a great deal, and you are an awesome (and inspiring!) prof! All your future students are very lucky! I really enjoyed the class too and I learned a lot--there were also times where you summed up my comp papers in like a sentence so that was awesome and definitely helped! TUTOR/TEACHING ASSISTANT TUTORIAL OBSERVATION REPORTS Course: Causation, Explanation and Laws of Nature (2 nd year metaphysics of science course), Fall 2010 Observer: Dr. Juha Saatsi In sum, this was a very competent interactive teaching session without any obvious shortcomings. The topic was nicely introduced; the session was very well attended, a telling sign at this stage of the module; the students readily participated by answering questions; the coverage of issues was excellent. The tutor was very approachable; friendly; encouraging. Course: Introduction to Political Philosophy (1 st year course), Fall 2011 Observer: Dr. Greg Radick Three things in particular impressed me about Kerry s ability to guide the discussion and keep the intellectual standard high. First, she was clearly on top of the material and very well prepared. At one point she even gave the students a Nozick handout of her own. But more generally, and throughout the discussion, she worked to break down complex ideas into simpler or more easily assimilated terms, with excellent use of examples (bringing in the American 7/10
Tea Party by way of helping students appreciate the political relevance of libertarianism today; changing Nozick s 1970s-era American example of wellpaid athlete to a 2010s-era British one; contrasting libertarian and Marxian views on how to fill out the sentence: To each according to X. ). Second, she mixed different tutorial-management approaches in a lively way for example, by sometimes calling on people to give an answer, and sometimes asking for volunteers. Third, she checked understanding throughout, gradually making sure that she d heard from even the quieter ones. In sum, it was an excellent tutorial, the more so given the condition of the students and the room. Course: Introduction to Ethics (1 st year course), Spring 2008 Observer: Prof. Chris Megone Kerry is a very effective tutor. They clearly like her and respect her, and this is unsurprising, as she was well versed in the set material and her explanations were generally clear and helpful and engaging. She was well organised, crisp, and confident, but not intimidating, and she also made nice connections to other tutorials to help the students begin to think of the broader picture. SURVEY DATA FROM INTRODUCTORY COURSES 2 PHIL1001: Introduction to Philosophy 2008-09 Semester 1: 4.54 out of 5 2007-08 Semester 1: 4.71 out of 5 PHIL1002: Introduction to Philosophy 2007-08 Semester 2: 4.73 out of 5 TEACHING REFERENCES Dr. Juha Saatsi Convenor for several courses on which I served as TA Department of Philosophy, University of Leeds, UK Email: J.T.Saatsi@leeds.ac.uk Dr. Nick Jones 2 Note that quantitative data is not available for all courses. In the case of certain undergraduate courses at the University of Leeds, this was due to lack of administrative support (as may be confirmed by emailing Dr Nick Jones (head of first year) at phlnoj@leeds.ac.uk). 8/10
Head of First Year Department of Philosophy, University of Leeds, UK Email: phlnoj@leeds.ac.uk Prof. Mark Migotti Professor at University of Calgary and auditor of my graduate course. Email: migotti@ucalgary.ca 9/10
SAMPLE SYLLABI 1. PHIL 667.5: Physics and the Metaphysics of Fundamentality (a senior / graduate level seminar taught at University of Calgary, Summer 2013) 2. PHIL 367 Philosophy and Science (an introductory philosophy of science class taught at University of Calgary, Winter 2013.) 3. Topics in Epistemology: Theory and Evidence (a senior level epistemology class taught at University of Leeds, Winter 2012.) 10/10
PHIL 667.5 Physics and the Metaphysics of Fundamentality Introduction 1 Kerry McKenzie Seminars: Monday and Wednesday 10 1, SS 1214 Office Hours: Thursday 10 12, SS 1208 1 Introduction. Contemporary metaphysics is arguably transitioning to a paradigm in which fundamentality lies centre-stage. But it remains the case that contemporary metaphysics overwhelming subscribes to physicalism the view that the actual world is fundamentally physical in nature. Such a view must entail naturalistic commitments of some sort, though what exactly these consist of is a matter of some dispute. This course will investigate the stratified picture of reality emerging in contemporary metaphysics from a naturalistic perspective. We will study in some detail the concepts associated with this reorientation in metaphysics and thus develop a firm grounding in a key contemporary theme. But we will also critically evaluate the standing of the a priori assumptions contained within this work from a broadly scientific point of view. As such, we ll become proficient in a central topic in metaphysics whilst also acquainting ourselves with themes in contemporary philosophy of science, and in so doing be encouraged to reflect on the methodological demands implicit in naturalistic metaphysics a theme gaining increasing prominence in its own right. 1.1 Philosophy of science meets metaphysics. Full disclosure: by its very nature some of the arguments we will encounter in the course will turn on some details of physics. But don t worry. Many of the major conceptual and metaphysical issues embedded in modern physics present themselves very quickly, and it will be my job to present them to you with the minimum of technicalities. Nor will your grades hang on any technical details. If you come away from this course aware of some of the questions which modern science poses to received fundamentality assumptions, and able to sketch some of their possible implications, you ll be doing just fine. 2 Evaluation and Grading You will be required to fulfill four tasks in order to pass the course. Presentation of Reading. You will introduce the set reading for the class on two or perhaps three occasions. Your aim is to present material that will stimulate 1 filename: IntroTruncated.tex 1
class discussion around a central issue; whether that will involve giving a synopsis of the reading will depend on the article, but do so where appropriate. Critical Summaries. You will be required to produce a critical summary of some central issues in each of the following areas: (1) The definition of the levels hierarchy; (2) The existence of a fundamental level; (3) Structures vs Objects as the fundamental category; (4) The interplay between science and armchair metaphysics in the fundamentality debate. These should be between 1000 and 1500 words in length. Provide references where appropriate. Paper proposal. The paper proposal will consist of two parts. The first part will explain and motivate the focus of your research by answering these questions. (1) What is the general topic area? (2) What are the main views on the topic? (3) What will your focus in that area be? The second part of your proposal will give a section-by-section outline of what you propose to write. This proposal will be discussed in detail with me and will serve as your research plan. The proposal should be no more than 1,250 words (approx. 5 pages double-space). I have some suggested titles for your essay, but you are welcome to write on a topic of your choice provided it is cleared with me in advance. Paper. Your paper should be between 4,000 and 5,000 words. This includes footnotes but not bibliography. Grading scale. 3 Structure of Course. 95 100 = A + 78-80=B + 68-70=C + 58-60=D + 85-94=A 75-77=B 65-67=C 50-57=D 81-84=A 71-74=B 61-64=C < 50=F There are three broad topics we ll be focussing on in this course. (1) The conceptual aspects of fundamentality. What does it mean to call something fundamental? (2) The locus of fundamentality. What, if anything, is fundamental in this world? (3) The methodology of fundamentality. Questions about fundamentality seem to involve both traditional metaphysics and contemporary science, but what should the interplay between these two forms of enquiry be? 1. Introduction. We will discuss two pieces that will help get us in the right frame of mind. Readings: Jonathan Schaffer s On What Grounds What and Ladyman and Ross, Chapter 1 of Every Thing Must Go, to end of Section 1.6. Tranche 1: Conceptions of Fundamentality 2. The Levels Hierarchy. Our focus today is on levels of reality, and we ll look at excerpts of Oppenheim and Putnam s Unity of Science as a Working 2
Hypothesis, Schaffer s Is there a Fundamental Level?, and a pieced-together hybrid of Maudlin s Part and Whole in Quantum Physics and Why be Humean?. Ahead of time, please read the handout distrubuted in the previous class and the Maudlin hybrid. 3. General Conceptions of Fundamentality 1. In this and the next seminar we will discuss the concept of priority from a more general perspective than last time. This seminar will focus on two issues: (1) supervenience, and its usefulness in expressing ontological priority; (2) the differences between supervenience and ontological dependence. Readings: Leuenberger, Supervenience and Metaphysics ; Stanford entry Supervenience, to end of Sections 3; and Yoshimi, Supervenience, Determination and Dependence, Sections 1-5. (Be judicious in your reading, depending on how familiar you are with supervenience.) 4. General Conceptions of Fundamentality 2. We will consider ontological dependence in more detail, addressing in particular the issue of whether we can understand ontological dependence in purely modal terms. Readings: Kit Fine s Ontological Dependence, Secs 1-3 (esp. 1 and 2), and Nathan Wildman, Sparseness, Modality and Essence (to be distributed). Tranche 2: The Locus of Fundamentality 5. The Existence of a Fundamental Level 1. In this and the next seminar we will consider some arguments for and against the existence of a fundamental level. The main reading for this seminar is Cameron s Turtles All the Way Down: Regress, Priority and Fundamentality ; read also the excerpts in the handout. 6. The Existence of a Fundamental Level 2. In this class we will consider whether and how we might positively deny the existence of a fundamental level. The main reading for this is Schaffer s Is There a Fundamental Level? ; read this plus excerpts in the handout. 7. The Fundamental Category 1. In this section we will consider some issues concerning what the fundamental category of the world is. We wil introduce this topic by first acquainting ourselves with the topic of structural realism via two of the most important papers in contemporary philosophy of science: Larry Laudan s A Confutation of Convergent Realism (slightly truncated version to be put on Blackboard), and John Worrall s Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?. These are classics that you should read regardless! 8. The Fundamental Category 2. We will continue our look at structuralism by thinking about ontic structural realism in the context of quantum mechanics. In particular, we will think about how structuralists ask us to reconceieve of quantum particles. We will consider their state-dependent (i.e. changeable) properties first, and here readings will include Saunders, Physics and Leibniz s Principles, Sections 1 and 2, plus handout. 3
9. The Fundamental Category 3. In this seminar we will think a bit about the understanding contemporary particle physicists have of the state-independent properties of quantum systems, an understanding which proceeds via the notion of symmetries. No reading this week I will be leading this class. 10. The Fundamental Category 4. This class reserved for a review of the material presented in this tranche. Tranche 3: The Methodology of Fundamentality 11. Methodology 1. Right at the beginning we looked at one extreme view on the usefulness of scientifically disinterested metaphysics. But now that we have completed the first two parts of the course we are in a position to develop a more nuanced picture of the physics metaphysics relationship than we ve encountered in the readings. Readings for this seminar are L.A. Paul, Metaphysics as Modelling: The Handmaiden s Tale, and Callender s Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics. 12. Methodology 2. In our final discussion, we will read and rip apart French and McKenzie s Thinking Outside the Toolbox. 4 Possible Essay Questions You are welcome to either select from this list or write on a topic of your own choice, provided it is cleared with me in advance. Tranche 1: conceptions of fundamentality 1. Describe one or some of the challenges relating to the definition of a levels hierarchy. 2. Can supervenience and / or ontological dependence act as a priority relation? 3. Can priority be defined modally? Tranche 2: the locus of fundamentality 5. Should we believe in the existence of a fundamental level to the actual world? 5. Is a fundamental level any more plausible than a first cause? 5. Should we believe the structuralist claim that so-called elementary particles such as electrons are not ontologically fundamental? 5. Assess the claim of ontic structuralists that relations, not objects, are what is fundamental in physics. Tranche 3: the methodology of fundamentality 10. Discuss the ways in which the issue of fundamentality can illuminate the interdependence or otherwise of science and armchair metaphysics. 20. Do developments in 20th century physics suggest that analytic metaphysics should be discontinued? 4
FACULTY OF ARTS DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY PHIL 367 Science and Philosophy Winter Term 2013 Course Outline Lectures: Monday, Wednesday, Friday 9-10am, MS 319 Instructor: Dr. Kerry McKenzie Office: 1208 Phone: 403 922 4536 Email: kerry.mckenzie@ucalgary.ca Office Hours: 11-12 Wednesday and Friday Course Description This course is a general introduction to the philosophy of science. In it, we will investigate the nature and status of scientific knowledge, focusing on the following three core issues. 1. Methodology. How is scientific knowledge acquired? By what means do we justify claims such as that unobservable particles like electrons exist, or that smoking causes cancer? 2. Demarcation. Scientific claims seem to have a special status, but can we really say what makes a claim scientific? How do we separate science from mere quackery or `pseudoscience? 3. Realism. Can we be sure that the unobservable entities of contemporary science, such as quarks or genes, really exist? Or should we only value science insofar as it is instrumentally useful to us in some way? Required Texts Curd, M. and Cover J.A. (1998): Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. NB: additional readings will be required for this course and will be put up on Blackboard. Evaluation 30% in- class test on Friday 8 th February. 35% paper due on Thursday 14 th March. 35% paper due on Monday 15 th April. Please note that there will not be a Registrar- scheduled final examination. Note also that you may be required to present a text or an issue before the class, though these presentations will not be formally assessed. 1
Grading Method 95-100 = A+ 78-80 = B+ 68-70 = C+ 58-60 = D+ 85-94 = A 75-77 = B 65-67 = C 50-57 = D 81-84 = A- 71-74 = B- 61-64 = C- < 50 = F Writing and the grading thereof is a factor in the evaluation of your work for this course. Course Breakdown 1. Introduction. Tranche 1: Methods of Justification 2. Introduction to inductive argument (no reading). 3. Introduction to hypothetico- deductive method: motivation and basic schema of confirmation and falsification. Reading: Earman and Salmon, Hypothetico- Deductive Confirmation (Blackboard). 4. Falsification and the Duhem- Quine problem. Reading: Commentary on Holism, C&C. 5. HD- type confirmation: underdetermination of theory by data. reading: Douven, Underdetermination (Blackboard). 6. Q&A session on induction and confirmation. 7. Clinical methods 1: Mill s methods for inferring causes; correlation is not causation. Readings: portions of Wesley Salmon, Logic and Philosophy of Science (Blackboard). 8. Clinical methods 2: animal testing and argument by analogy. Readings: portions of Wesley Salmon, Logic and Philosophy of Science (Blackboard). 9. Q&A on clinical methods. 10. Hume s problem of induction. Reading: Stanford Encyclopedia, entry on Problem of Induction sections 1 and 2 only; excerpt of Hume (Blackboard). 11. Popper s attempted solution to Hume s problem. Readings: Popper, Hume s problem of induction, in C&C. Optional: portions of WH Newton- Smith s `Rationality of Science (Blackboard.) 12. Q&A on the problem of induction. 13. Trouble- shooting session on Tranche 1. 14. TEST. Tranche 2: The Demarcation Problem. 15. Introduction to science vs pseudoscience. No readings. 2
16. Popper s falsificationism. Readings: Popper, excerpt of Conjectures and Refutations, in C&C 17. Q&A on pseudoscience and Popper. 18. Kuhn s paradigms. Readings: Kuhn s Logic of Discovery of Psychology of Research? in Curd and Cover; handout (ahead of time) containing excepts of Kuhn s Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 19. Lakatosian research programmes. Reading: Lakatos, Science and Pseudoscience in C&C; excerpts of Newton- Smith (Blackboard). 20. Q&A on Kuhn and Lakatos. 21. Applications 1: Astrology. Reading: handout (ahead of time). 22. Applications 2: Creationism and the Arkansas Education Act. Reading: Ruse, Creation Science is not Science, in C&C. 23. Applications 3: Creationism cont d. Reading: Laudan, Science at the Bar, in C&C. 24. Q&A on applications. 25. Class on successful essay writing. (No reading.) Tranche 3: Realism vs Anti-Realism about Science. 26. Intro to Realism vs Antirealism. (No reading.) 27. Van Fraassen s constructive empiricism. Reading: van Fraassen, Arguments Concerning Scientific Realism, in C&C. 28. Musgrave s criticisms of van Fraassen. Reading: Musgrave: Realism versus Constructive Empiricism, C&C. 29. Q&A on constructive empiricism. 30. Laudan and the pessimistic meta- induction. Reading: Laudan, A Confutation of Convergent Realism, in C&C. 31. Worrall s response to PMI: structural realism. Reading: Worrall, Structural Realism: the best of both worlds?, Blackboard. 32. Q&A on the pessimistic meta- induction. 33. Hacking s experimental realism. Reading: Hacking, Experimentation and Scientific Realism, in C&C. 34. Resnik s criticisms. Reading: Resnik, Hacking s Experimental Realism, C&C. 35. Essay troubleshooting for Realism vs Antirealism. 3
PHIL2402 TOPICS IN EPISTEMOLOGY: THEORY AND EVIDENCE Module Description Semester 2, 2011 12 Level 2 module 20 credits Allowed as elective Module leader: Kerry McKenzie ph07km@leeds.ac.uk Office: BG35 Office Hours: Thursday 10 12 Wk: Date Topic 1: 23/01 Introduction and Overview 1: 27/01 Forms of inductive arguments: Statistical Syllogisms, Analogical Arguments, and Enumerativ 2: 30/01 Causal arguments: Introduction to Mill s methods 3: 06/02 Exercises and Q&A 3: 10/02 Elementary probability ideas: axioms and paradoxes 4: 13/02 Decision theory: decision-making in an uncertain world 4: 17/02 Introduction to Interpretations of probability 5: 20/02 Exercises and Q&A 6: 27/02 HD-method and its problems: Underdetermination and Duhem-Quine 6: 02/03 Paradoxes of confirmation: all ravens are grue 7: 05/03 Bayesian confirmation theory 7: 09/03 Q&A 8: Essay writing week deadline 19th March Easter break... 9: 16/04 Hume s problem of induction and Falsificationism 9: 20/04 Lakatosian Research Programmes 10: 23/04 IBE: The importance of explanation? 11: 30/04 Q&A 1
1 Objectives, methods, requirements 1.1 What this course is about This module concerns a central topic in epistemology: the nature and role of evidence and how it relates to theory. It covers a range central topics such as: the nature of inductive arguments and inductive fallacies; observation and its relation to theory; the old and the new problem of induction; the nature of probability and statistical reasoning, and the nature of causal and explanatory reasoning. Here are examples of the types of questions and issues tackled in this module: How does a set of observations confirm a hypothesis over another? What is philosophically problematic about inductive reasoning in everyday life or in science? What is the nature of probabilistic and statistical reasoning from evidence? How is probability to be understood? Is there a universal framework that relates theories and evidence? What role does causal and explanatory reasoning play in assessing evidence? 1.2 Objectives On completion of this module students should be able to critically discuss a variety of issues concerning the relationship between a theory and its evidence. The main topics include: inductive and causal reasoning; the nature of probability and statistical reasoning; confirmation and the scientific method. 1.3 Learning methods There are 12 lectures, 4 Q&A -sessions, and 4 tutorials. A Q&A -session comes after every three lectures and provides the module leader the opportunity to clarify and elaborate on the covered lecture material in a more interactive way. There is a set reading for each lecture. These reading must be completed by the time the respective Q&A -session takes place. Critical issues in the readings will be covered in more detail in tutorials that provide further opportunity for interactive reflection and learning. As this is a 20 credit module, you should plan to spend on average about 12-13 hours per teaching week on it, and about 200 hours in total, when essay preparation is taken into account. That breaks down roughly as follows: 1. Lectures: 16 x 1 hour; 2. Tutorials: 4 x 1 hour. 3. 6 hours reading, writing and preparing per lecture: 96 hours; 4. 6 hours reading, writing and preparing per tutorial: 24 hours; 5. Writing an essay: 30 hours, re-reading material, reading further material, and developing an in-depth understanding of an essay topic 6. Exam revision: 30 hours revising, reading over lecture notes, handouts, etc. 1.4 Assessment Assessment is by an essay (1500 words) and a 2h-final exam (each 50%). 2
Exam. The exam will consist of four questions, from which you must choose two. Marking criteria. In marking the essay the module leader will be looking for three things, weighted roughly equally: Comprehension: understanding of the concepts and ideas discussed in the essay. Clarity: presentation of the ideas and concepts in a clear and concise manner. Engagement: independent thinking about the items under discussion. 1.5 Feedback You will receive written feedback on your first assessed work within two weeks of the deadline. You are welcome to discuss your essay further with the module leader in her office hours or by appointment. At the end of the semester, you can apply to the module leader for qualitative feedback on your second assessed essay. Set reading. All required readings (and more!) are included in the module Course Pack that must be purchased (from Blackwell s). Other reading. Further reading will be provided in the VLE. 3