Study Guide

Objective

The student is able to
- understand mechanisms and phenomenons related to public finances and international economics.
- make use of statistics related to economics

Evaluation scale

H-5

Objective

The student is able to
- understand mechanisms and phenomenons related to public finances and international economics.
- make use of statistics related to economics

Evaluation scale

H-5

Objective

The student is able to
- understand mechanisms and phenomenons related to public finances and international economics.
- make use of statistics related to economics

Evaluation scale

H-5

Objective

The student is able to
- understand mechanisms and phenomenons related to public finances and international economics.
- make use of statistics related to economics

Evaluation scale

H-5

Objective

The student is able to
- understand mechanisms and phenomenons related to public finances and international economics.
- make use of statistics related to economics

Materials

Informed at the beginning of the study unit.

Teaching methods

Innovation pedagogy, PBL.

International connections

Innovation pedagogy, PBL.

Completion alternatives

No optional methods.

Student workload

5 ects. Detailled instructions in the beginning of the study unit.

Content scheduling

5 ects. Hybrid-method.

Further information

-

Evaluation scale

H-5

Assessment methods and criteria

Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund- Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)
Scale : 0- 5
• Fail (0)
There are clear mistakes in the returned tasks, or something is missing (e.g. video-presentation, peer comments etc.) or the tasks returned are very limited. Or the deadlines are neglected. References are limited or poorly used.
• Satisfactory (1-2)
All the task are returned on time and they reach satisfactory level, but they are limited / narrow and lacking deep analysis. Or the references are very limited. Presentations limited. The amount of tools & theories used is limited. Self- and peer-evaluation(when and if asked) is limited.
• Good (3-4)
All the tasks are analytical, and well done. They represent high quality in terms of references, length and deep analysis. And in comparison to other group members there are clear bonus aspects. Also presentations are of high quality. And the peer comments are constructive and analytical (when asked). Above the minimum requirements in every way. The amount of used tools & theories is large. Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.

• Excellent (5)
All the tasks are excellent. And results are even higher than in the grade 3-4. Presentations extremely high quality as well as peer comments. Well above all the other requirements ( in length, deep analysis etc.). Lots of references, all the tools & theories used (or at least most of them). Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.

Assessment criteria, fail (0)

Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund- Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)
Scale : 0- 5
• Fail (0)
There are clear mistakes in the returned tasks, or something is missing (e.g. video-presentation, peer comments etc.) or the tasks returned are very limited. Or the deadlines are neglected. References are limited or poorly used.

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1-2)

Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund- Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)
Scale : 0- 5

• Satisfactory (1-2)
All the task are returned on time and they reach satisfactory level, but they are limited / narrow and lacking deep analysis. Or the references are very limited. Presentations limited. The amount of tools & theories used is limited. Self- and peer-evaluation(when and if asked) is limited.

Assessment criteria, good (3-4)

Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund- Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)

• Good (3-4)
All the tasks are analytical, and well done. They represent high quality in terms of references, length and deep analysis. And in comparison to other group members there are clear bonus aspects. Also presentations are of high quality. And the peer comments are constructive and analytical (when asked). Above the minimum requirements in every way. The amount of used tools & theories is large. Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Only those tasks that are returned on time, before the final deadline, are evaluated and can be accepted ! Late returns are not qualified. Please note that Urkund- Plagiarism detection can be used, so use citations and references correctly (according to any standard you wish e.g. Harvard, TUAS etc.)
Scale : 0- 5

• Excellent (5)
All the tasks are excellent. And results are even higher than in the grade 3-4. Presentations extremely high quality as well as peer comments. Well above all the other requirements ( in length, deep analysis etc.). Lots of references, all the tools & theories used (or at least most of them). Self- and peer-evaluation (when and if asked) is analytical, deep, reflective and constructive.