The content on this page was translated automatically.

The written elaboration is an essential part of a seminar submission, since the content of the presentation is based on this text. Therefore, the elaboration should be included in the grade with significant weight. Since there have been massive problems with it in the past, especially concerning the formal aspects and the external form, but also the argumentation and depth of the content, the following regulation is applied:

The written elaboration will be included in the overall grade with 50%.

The procedure is as follows: The paper should be written before the presentation if possible. However, only a one-page overview must be submitted beforehand (see template sheet in Moodle). The elaborations will then be submitted after the presentation. After the presentations, all participants will have access to all overviews and can revise their own text again. The submission will then be graded. In this context, I would like to point out that you should write a text with a university claim - without a high quality, and especially with itemized proofs for assertions or text passages taken from the content, such a paper would not be published (e.g. on a university website) and thus scientifically worthless! Please consider this.

Common mistakes made in the elaboration

Caution: You are supposed to write a text with university requirements here! In this process you should just learn to meet the corresponding requirements or to know them. For most points it is sufficient to open any textbook on any page and not to violate the rules applied there.

Here is a list of the most common weaknesses so far:

  • Lack of chapter/subchapter numbering.
  • Missing spelling correction
  • Missing captions and appropriate addressing of images/tables in the text
  • Missing literature references in the text (single evidence for statements!)
  • Missing numbering of literature references (thus they cannot be referenced from the text)
  • Missing information in the bibliography: Title, date (of access for web pages), author(s)... also for web pages, a list with 18 http addresses without further information is definitely not enough!
  • Incorrect or unusual referencing
  • Missing evidence/references for assertions/statements
  • Changing spelling of the same term (e.g. eBook, E-Book)
  • Incorrect spelling of a (technical) term (e.g. correct: e-mail, incorrect: eMail, e-Mail, Email)
  • Use of colloquial language
  • Abbreviations not explained
  • Unreadable images (too small, no vector formats)
  • No justification (is possible, but usually does not look good)
  • Reader addressed directly ("") or inclusively ("...we...")
  • Written in the first person outside of one's own evaluation

These rather formal points, if they appear systematically, go massively into the grading!

In addition, of course, attention must also be paid to the content: Claims must be substantiated (literature reference) or justified (valid and comprehensible). Own and adopted opinions must be distinguishable and clearly marked. What is mentioned must also be explained or put into context. If we discuss the consequences of technology, the technology must be explained in detail beforehand (how does it work, how is it built, how is it connected). In particular, the basic concepts must be explained.