This is a 6,000-word assignment (+/- 10% tolerance)
Instructions
1. Choose one of the themes on page 3
2. Review the literature relevant to the theme of your choice.
3. Discuss your theme with reference to a setting (which can be as large as a whole world region or as small as a particular community) with which you are familiar (e.g. because you currently live/work or have lived/worked there, it is the place where you come from, etc.) This means that you have to explain how the issues you discuss how relevant and what implications they have to the part of the world of your choice.
How to structure your work
The structure of your work should look like a funnel. That is, it should move from the general (broad) to the specific (narrow). This means, you should start by discussing your theme in general terms, primarily by dis- cussing literature and main concepts/issues related to it and, and then shift your focus towards the context of your choice, saying how those concepts/issues are relevant there. It would be a good idea (but not essen- tial), if you included a bit of primary research in the more context ualised section of your work. This won’t need to reveal significant findings, of course, but it could be an interesting trial run for a possible dissertation. Also, it would make your work more interesting and, hopefully, fun.
Evaluation
The assignment will be marked according to:
• Evidence of familiarity with relevant literature – 25%
• Evidence of knowledge of fundamental principles in World Englishes – 25%
• Context ualised discussion of those principles– 30%
• Adherence to referencing conventions (Harvard/APA) – 15%
• General neatness and presentation – 5%
Band descriptors for marking criteria
excellent good fair just passable poor
familiarity with literature Ample evidence of familiarity with the relevant WE literature. Good familiarity with the WE literature, with occasional key texts not referred to where relevant. Adequate familiarity with the WE literature, although not very comprehensive. Some familiarity with WE literature, but incomplete, especially as regards key texts and scholars. Very little or no familiarity with the WE literature.
Principles of WE Comprehensive knowledge of the issues, concerns and proposals within the WE field. Good knowledge overall of the issues, concerns and proposals in WE, with some inaccuracy and/or incompleteness. Evidence of adequate familiarity with the WE field in general, if with some visible imperfection. Familiarity with the WE field can be evinced but is rather fragmentary. Very little or no evidence of familiarity with the main issues, concerns and proposals in the WE field.
Context ualised Perceptive, cogent and relevant analysis and discussion, very well connected with relevant literature Good analysis and discussion overall, well connected to relevant literature. Occasional weaker arguments. Adequate analysis and discussion.
Arguments not always very strongly made. It may rely excessively on secondary sources. Some interesting comments made, analysis and discussion rather weak, succinct and/or heavily reliant on secondary sources. Very little or no personal analysis and discussion. Very weak arguments.
referencing In-text references to a range of sources used where relevant. Accurate format. In-text references used well, but at times not included where they should be. Accurate format with few minor errors. In-text references used fairly well, but not always. Range not as wide as it could be.
Some inaccuracies in the format. Some in-text references used, but too few and not always in relevant points. Limited range of sources. Errors in the format. Very few or no in-text references used. Serious errors in the format.
presentation No typos. Very clear use of headings and subheadings. No ‘widow’ headings. Only very occasional typos. Clear use of headings and subheadings. Only very occasional ‘widow’ headings. A few typos here and there.
Adequate use of headings and subheadings. A few ‘widow’ headings. Many typos. Headings are used but not always very clearly. A number of ‘widow’ headings. Many careless typos. No use of headings.
Generally untidy presentation.
