25 05 2015 textfield Datum 8 textfield jmeno_studenta Michal Vojkůvka textfield Author 4 nazev_prace E-learning Methods of Studying the English Language for Advanced Learners at Masaryk University textfield Thesis Title 1 oponent Mgr. et Mgr. Barbora Thiella, M.A. textfield Reviewer 6 pracoviste Department of English and American Studies textfield Department 3 studium 599179 textfield Field of Study 2 vedouci PhDr. Simona Kalová textfield Supervisor 5 central_idea A textfield 1. Evaluation of central idea, thesis, focus and purpose 3 language A textfield 4. Evaluation of language, style, standard usage, citation and bibliographic standards 6 navrhovane_hodnoceni B textfield Reviewer’s recommendation for overall mark 1 organization C textfield 2. Evaluation of organization, logic and arrangement 4 topic_devel C textfield 3. Evaluation of topic development, support and evidence 5 tralala textfield 2 oponentka textfield Hodnotil kat_an_am_ved_bc Faculty of Arts, Bachelor’s Thesis comments The thesis presents the e-learning tools that are used at Masaryk University and that might be useful for the study of English in particular. It gives an overview of websites, programmes and online dictionnaries that students can consult and incorporate into the process of learning. The whole presentation of the e-learning tools is a result of a questionnaire that was distributed among the students of the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Education. The first issue at hand is that the reader doesn’t know much about the questionnaire itself until the very end of the thesis where the questionnaire appears out of the blue as an appendix. The chapter called Questionnaires (17) promises to give the relevant methodological information (e.g. what kinds of questions were asked, how many, what was the structure of the questionnaire and why, what was the testing environment?) but that chapter talks more about the “digital generation“. There is no comprehensive characteristics of the questionnaire. Instead, partial results along the lines of “In general, 91% of students interviewed think that e-learning has future potential as an educational medium“ are presented when, in reality, the reader has no idea what questions were asked in the first place. Since it was the basis and the justification of the choice of the programmes presented in the thesis, it should have been described more in detail. It would be also interesting to actually see the results – nowhere in the paper can we find the overall results, except for the question regarding learning styles, where there is a graph. How many students mentioned which applications or tools? Why is this information missing? Were the programmes mentioned in the thesis the only ones the students had in their questionnaires or were there any others? A more systematic overview of the learning tools would be desirable for each one of them as well, e.g. first, the presentation of the layout, then the features, its main focus, its management, etc. I would argue for a more organized description for each programme. Apart from the occassional spelling and grammatical mistakes, e.g. in (the) need of (21), the learner ... they ... (28), Pedagogical Faculty (the official name is the Faculty of Education), set feet (9), centralize of all (9), as well as some methodological and organizational issues that should have been addressed better, the thesis is an interesting insight into the chosen field. Its language is more than satisfactory.   textarea Comments and/or topics and questions for the thesis defence 7 diskuse textarea 8 B