The following pieces of information can be found at the department’s web page. They
are all collected here in one file for the sake of convenience.
1. General Guidelines
The student chooses one literary topic (area) of all possible ones which she/he have
encountered during Master studies. The student will present the topic (area) orally, trying to
express her/his individual perspective to the topic, with the support of three to five secondary
academic sources.
In required time at least four weeks before the state exam, students are asked to submit a
preparation sheet. It includes: the topic of the presentation, an abstract of the preparation, and
annotated bibliography of secondary sources. The preparation sheet will be submitted in
person or by e-mail to ​Jana Popelkova​. It needs to include your name.
2. Specific Details
Philosophy
Masters’ students are asked to be independent in their work with sources, data and
information. They will demonstrate their analytical and connective thinking.
Form
The state exams focus on analysis of and connections between literary fields, personae,
theories, traditions, etc. and it can also include the field of cultural studies. The goal of the
exam is in-depth focus on the topic of one’s own choice. This choice can be made from a
wide range of authors, topics, areas, literary movements, literary and cultural theories and
perspectives encountered during the whole course of Master’s study (this includes any
literary and cultural compulsory courses, compulsorily optional and optional courses that you
have taken). At the same time, the choice is not strictly limited to course content but may
well reach beyond it if such a choice is well justified (for example, one may choose to speak
about Elizabeth Bowen, who was not introduced in the course on British modernism but who
undoubtedly belongs to that period and is included as a British modernist writer by reliable
literary sources –​Norton Anthology​, ​Cambridge Companion to Modernism​and others).
The goal of the exam is to show that students are able to work independently with the
knowledge acquired so far, that they can deepen and question it as well as make effective
connections. Students are expected to investigate topics encountered in their Master’s study
so far to further depth and extent. For this kind of independent investigation, it is necessary
that students use both course materials and other sources accessible in libraries and databases
(Literature Online, JSTOR, Google Scholar) to prepare for the exam.
Students will prepare to talk of a specific TOPIC of their own choice. The topic should
concern:
● the student’s own critical perspective developed in relation to primary and secondary
sources. Students will specify their own topic and approach it analytically. (For
example, how the progress of civilization is treated differently in T.S. Eliot and E. M.
Forster; or, how race is represented in contemporary urban novels; or what role
Christianity plays in the novels of Louise Erdrich; or the significance of violence for
the formation of identity in young adult fiction, etc.)
● primary source(s): one or more novel(s), play(s), collection(s) of short stories or
poems, etc. by one or more authors.
● secondary sources: 3-5 (books of criticism, articles from literary journals, literary
companions such as Cambridge, literary encyclopedias, scholarly articles found at
Google scholar or Literature Online); but NO sparknotes or wikipedia.
Preparation for the exam:
Students will be asked to submit a preparation sheet (type-written, font 12, printed out).
Submission Deadline: about one month before the exam; same as for the state exams in
linguistics
The preparation sheet will include:
● topic (stated briefly)
● abstract (stating the analysis of the topic, their individual perspective, questions,
ideas, findings, points of interest, etc.)
● annotated bibliography of secondary sources. Each annotation will be about 1
paragraph long (5-10 sentences roughly). It will include:
A.​main ideas from the source
B.​justification of the choice of source - why the source is relevant for the
individual topic or perspective and how it helps shed light on it.
The exam will take 10-15 minutes and will have 2 parts:
5-10 min: oral delivery of topic​- no powerpoint presentation; students will speak on their
own topic; a preparation sheet and some supporting notes for the talk are recommended; mere
reading is discouraged and will result in a significantly lower grade; it is necessary to keep
the time limit in mind.
5 min: conversation on the topic in the form of questions and answers
Assessment:
The exam will be assessed according to an assessment rubric. The evaluation will include:
1. the​​actual performance ​when presenting the topic
2. the​​quality of answers​during Q&A (less stress on data, more stress on
connective thinking and independent development of ideas during
conversation)
3. the​​preparation sheet​(annotated bibl. + abstract)
Note:​If a student’s Master’s thesis is in the field of literature, some crossovers are possible.
The main topic for the oral part of the state exams may be similar but cannot be exactly the
same as in the thesis. The choice of the theme for the oral part of the state exam should be
consulted with the supervisor of the thesis.
3. Assessment Rubric
PRESENTATION RESPONSES TO
QUESTIONS
PREPARATION
SHEET
A
Exceptional
Student’s critical
perspective is clear and
ideas are original; they are
well-supported by evidence
from both the primary and
secondary sources; source
information is scholarly, it
is analyzed and synthesized
effectively and persuasively.
Responses are thoughtful;
their quality is
consistently solid;
students convincingly
defend their position on
the topic
The topic introduced in the
abstract is focused;
student’s perspective on the
topic is original. Sources
listed in the annotated
bibliography are scholarly,
their connection to
student’s presentation is
justified
B
Above
average
Student’s critical
perspective is clear; it is
supported by evidence from
both the primary and
secondary sources; source
information is mostly
scholarly, it is analyzed and
synthesized well
Responses are thoughtful,
but their quality may
appear slightly uneven;
students convincingly
defend their position on
the topic
The topic introduced in the
abstract is focused;
student’s perspective on the
topic is persuasive. Sources
listed in the annotated
bibliography are scholarly,
their connection to
student’s presentation is in
most cases justified
C
Average
Student’s critical
perspective is rather
commonplace; it is partly
supported by evidence from
both the primary and
secondary sources; source
information is mostly
scholarly, it is analyzed and
synthesized well
Responses are thoughtful,
but their quality is
uneven; when defending
their position on the
topic, students may
occasionally use vague
generalities or clichés
The topic introduced in the
abstract is quite broad;
student’s perspective on the
topic is commonplace.
Sources listed in the
annotated bibliography are
both scholarly and popular,
their connection to
student’s presentation is
justified but only in some
cases
D
Below
average
Student’s critical
perspective is inconsistent;
evidence from both the
primary and secondary
sources is limited; source
information is mostly
popular and too general, it
is not analyzed and
synthesized appropriately
Responses are too vague;
when defending their
position on the topic,
students rely only on
generalities or clichés
The topic introduced in the
abstract is too broad;
student’s perspective on the
topic is rudimentary.
Sources listed in the
annotated bibliography are
mostly popular, their
connection the to student’s
presentation is only vaguely
explained
E
Poor
Student’s critical
perspective is superficial;
evidence from both the
primary and secondary
sources is limited; source
information is mostly
unreliable and too general,
it is not analyzed and
synthesized appropriately
Responses are
rudimentary; students
cannot defend their
position on the topic
convincingly
The topic introduced in the
abstract is broad and
superficial; student’s
perspective on the topic is
rudimentary. Sources listed
in the annotated
bibliography are
unreliable, their connection
to student’s presentation is
not clearly stated
F
Not Passing
Presentation lacks critical
perspective, it is descriptive,
and lacks relevant ideas.
Source information is not
analyzed or synthesized.
Responses are not
satisfactory; students fail
to defend their position
on the topic
The abstract summarizes
the content of the primary
source and does not contain
any topic. The sources
listed in the annotated
bibliography are missing or
not reliable, their
connection to student’s
presentation is not
explained