Skip to main content
Till KTH:s startsida

MH2450 International Seminar in Material Processes 6.0 credits

Course memo Autumn 2024-51350

Version 2 – 08/23/2024, 5:57:18 PM

Course offering

Autumn 2024-51350 (Start date 26 Aug 2024, English)

Language Of Instruction

English

Offered By

ITM/Materials Science and Engineering

Course memo Autumn 2024

Administer About course

Headings denoted with an asterisk ( * ) is retrieved from the course syllabus version Autumn 2019

Content and learning outcomes

Course contents

The course consists of a major project aiming to provide a deepened understanding of Materials Science and Process Design together with training in general engineering abilities.

The different projects should deal with problems within Science and Process Design, integrating technical aspects and society’s demands as to laws and regulations, ethics, economy and environment.

The course responsible provides suitable projects and a special supervisor is assigned to each project. It is possible to suggest projects, but a KTH supervisor is always assigned.

The work is done individually or in groups of 2-3 participants.

The project should contain the following parts

  • Project planning
  • Project meetings, possibly with the supervisor (about 1 h/week)
  • A literature survey
  • Performing experiments, calculations and similar
  • Analysis and conclusions
  • Written report
  • Oral presentation

Intended learning outcomes

After the course the student should be able to:

  • Plan and manage a technical project
  • Writing a scientific report within a specific area of materials and process design
  • Present a scientific report writing and orally in national and international seminars
  • Oppose on presentations of the corresponding scientific reports
  • Relate to and discuss society's expectations concerning ethics, economy and environment

Learning activities

Project management and communciation skills will be taught in three scheduled lectures, online material and a workshop led by KTH library.

Students shall carry out a project over 120 hours in the autumn term.

Students shall present a problem formulation in a short seminar during the course and shall present the results of their projects in an oral presentation at a large seminar at the end of the course, a written report and a poster. Students shall also critically review a report from a student from another university and provde feedback during the seminar as an opponent - more information shall be given about this during the course.

Detailed plan

Timetable for MH2450.  This schedule is subject to change and you are encouraged to check Schema regularly to make sure you have the latest information.  You can subscribe to the Schema calendar for this course  (link to external website) to stay updated. In addition to these sessions, some question and answer "clinics" shall be arranged during the course.
Learning activities Date Start End Location Main teacher Content Preparations
Lecture  2024-08-26  1000 1200   B25 Chris Hulme Introduction to course and graphic design None.
Lecture 2024-09-04 1000 1200 Digital Chris Hulme Project planning None.
Lecture 2024-09-11 1300 1500 Digital Chris Hulme Written communciation None.
Seminar 2024-09-23 1000 1200 B25 N/A Problem formulation Short presentation on project aims
Lecture 2024-09-30 1000 1200 TBC (in person) KTH Library Source evaluation and bibliographic management software Consider previous literature reviews you have done and come up with questions on source evaluation and bibliographic management
Lecture 2024-10-07 1000 1200 Digital Chris Hulme Oral communciation Reflect on presentations given on 2023-09-23 and consider what you might want to improve
Seminar 2024-11-20 - 2024-11-22 0800 1700 Oulu University, Oulu, Finland N/A International Seminar Prepare full presentation on results of project, poster and written report. Read and prepare opposition report for student from another university.

Subscribe to the course timetable on the KTH Schema service (link to external website, downloads calendar file compatible with Outlook, iCal, iOS Calendar, GMail, Mozilla Thunderbird, etc.)

Preparations before course start

Specific preparations

None.

Literature

Some literature will be suggested during the course. No single source is recommended for the course, as everyone is different and so no single source will help everyone.

Equipment

No special equipment is required for the course, but some projects may require special equipment. Students should consult the project leader for each individual project.

Tavel

Students must attent the seminar that will take place in Oulu 20-21 November. Students shall share a room with colleagues of the same sex. Contact the course leader if this is a problem for you, so alternative arrangements can be considered.

Examination and completion

Grading scale

A, B, C, D, E, FX, F

Examination

  • PROA - Project, 6.0 credits, Grading scale: A, B, C, D, E, FX, F

Based on recommendation from KTH’s coordinator for disabilities, the examiner will decide how to adapt an examination for students with documented disability.

The examiner may apply another examination format when re-examining individual students.

The section below is not retrieved from the course syllabus:

Project ( PROA )

The project is assessed in six parts:

Problem specification - due 2022-09-22

Upload the slide(s) for your problem specification presentation.

Give a brief oral presentation at the Problem Formulation Seminar, including:

  • introduction of your project
  • supervisor(s)
  • background to the project
  • aims and goals
  • an initial project plan
  • methods you are likely to use
  • consideration to ethical, environmental and economic impact of your project and/or the topic in general.

The presentations for the problem formulation seminar are limited to a fixed time that will be specified before the problem formulation seminar, followed by a short time for questions from the audience and chairperson. The exact times depend on the number of students who take the course.

Up to four points can be awarded for the slides submitted to Canvas.  A further point shall be awarded if the submitted slides are presented during the seminar (or an equivalent exercise is completed, by arrangement with the examiner).

Written report - due 2024-11-13

Submit your written report for your project.  New for 2024 is that the written report should take the form of a journal article, based on a template provided by NTNU and Oulu University.  Grading shall be done in accordance with the criteria given on Canvas.

If any grading criterion is failed, the entire assignment will be failed and you will be invited to improve the report.

The written report is worth 40 points towards the overall assessment.  The points from this assignment will then be added to your overall score to contribute to your final grade out of 100, which will be converted to a letter grade using the standard KTH grade boundaries.

Poster - due 2024-11-15

Upload a poster for printing and display.  The file must be a PDF and the correct aspect ratio (shape) for printing at A1 size.  You should prepare a talk of 2-3 minutes to explain your poster in case we get time during the seminar to do so.

The points you score in this assignment will be added to those from the written report, slideshow, presentation and opposition report to give an overall score out of 100 for the course and to assign a letter grade based on the standard KTH grade boundaries.

Slideshow for use at the International Seminar - due 2024-11-18

Upload your finished slideshow that you will use at the online seminar.  The design of your slides is graded here and not in the assignment for the presentation itself.

You may update or edit your slides after submitting them, for use in the seminar, but the submitted slides will be assessed in this assignment and used to form your final grade, not the updated slides.

The points you score in this assignment will be added to those from the poster, presentation, written report and opposition report to give an overall score out of 100 for the course.  Your final letter grade will be based on the overall score according to standard KTH grade boundaries.

Opposition report - due 2024-11-19

Critically assess the content of the extended abstract submitted by a researcher from NTNU.  In particular, you should suggest ways in which the research could be improved in the future.  Along with your overall report (⩽1 pages), include questions that you might ask during the seminar.  You do not have to ask any of these questions during the final seminar and you can make up new questions during the presentation.  It is common for the information you need from NTNU to write your opposition report to arrive late - in that case, you will be given extra time to complete your report without any loss of credit.

Presentation at the International Seminar - 2024-11-20/21

This is the assignment for your presentation at the seminar.  It does not include the slide show itself, as this is graded separately.  However, the slide show forms part of your presentation and so contributes to this assignment indirectly.

Overall grade

The points you score in eachassignment will be added together to give an overall score out of 100 for the course.  Your final letter grade will be based on the overall score.

Other requirements for final grade

The student must:

  • Make an oral presentation at the final seminar (in English)
  • Orally oppose a project at the final seminar (in English)

And submit:

  • A problem formulation report including the results of the literary survey (in English)
  • A final report (in English)

Grading criteria/assessment criteria

Criterion      
Submit slides for presentation that cover the following information:

- introduction of your project
- project supervisor(s)
- background to the project
- project aims and goals
- an initial project plan
- methods you are likely to use in the project
- consideration to ethical, environmental and economic impact of your project and/or the topic in general.
Good
 
Slides with all or nearly all relevant information are uploaded to Canvas by the main deadline. The slides contain all the information requested, together with the context of the project within materials science.
Acceptable
 
Most of the requested information is included, without good explanation or context. Alternatively, the slides are submitted after the deadline.
 0 Pts
Incomplete
 
Slides are not uploaded to Canvas, or the a significant amount of required information is missing from the slides.
The slides are presented at the Problem Formulation Seminar
Complete
 
The presentation is given.
   0 Pts
Incomplete
 
No presentation is given.

Written report

Criterion            
Language 10 Pts to > 8.0 Pts
Excellent
 
The report is concise, enjoyable to read and very informative. The language is perfect and efficient. All scientific conventions have been followed. The language is of the standard seen in good scientific journals.
 8 Pts to > 6.0 Pts
Very good
 
The report may contain errors, but none of them affects how easy it is to understand the content. Scientific conventions have been followed in most places.
 6 Pts to > 4.0 Pts
Good
 
There are some mistakes, but it is generally easy to understand the meaning of the report. Scientific conventions are followed in most places.
 4 Pts to > 2.0 Pts
Acceptable
 
There may be some mistakes in the language and some points may not be very clear, but the report can generally be understood. Some effort has been made to obey scientific conventions.
 2 Pts to > 0.0 Pts
Poor
 
There are major mistakes in the language and the report is difficult to understand, but some information can be obtained.
 0 Pts
Fail
 
There are so many problems with the language that no information is communicated.
Content 15 Pts to > 12.0 Pts
Excellent
 
The report contains all required sections and the ideas communicated are original and insightful. The contents of the paper are suitable for publication in a good scientific journal.
 12 Pts to > 9.0 Pts
Very good
 
The project contains all required parts. The ideas included in the report are interesting and well-researched. The work could form the basis of a scientific publication.
 9 Pts to > 6.0 Pts
Good
 
The report is not missing more than one or two required sections. The content is interesting and has been researched in detail. Ideas from the report could be used in future work to form the basis of a scientific publication.
 6 Pts to > 3.0 Pts
Acceptable
 
Some required sections are missing, but the report manages to communicate interesting and logical research.
 3 Pts to > 0.0 Pts
Poor
 
The report has major problems. Sections may be missing. The science presented in the report are factually incorrect or irrelevant to the problem statement. The report does not successfully communicate any research.
 0 Pts
Fail
 
The report is not submitted or is missing so much content that it cannot be understood at all. It fails to communicate any significant information.
Figures, tables, etc. 10 Pts to > 6.0 Pts
Excellent
 
Figures are of high quality and make a substantial contribution to the report. They could be published in a high-quality scientific journal with little editing. Any potential copyright issues have been mentioned.
   6 Pts to > 2.0 Pts
Good
 
Figures are included and are generally correct and useful. Some figures may be included without citations or any mention of the necessary permissions.
 2 Pts to > 0.0 Pts
Acceptable
 
Figures contribute to the report but are not used as well as they could be. Some figures may be difficult to read/understand or may not be referenced correctly in the text.
   0 Pts
Fail
 
Figures do not make any significant contribution to the report.
Citations 5 Pts to > 3.0 Pts
Excellent
 
Citations are used appropriately and are consistent with current scientific standards. They could be used for an article in a good-quality scientific journal.
   3 Pts to > 1.0 Pts
Good
 
A serious attempt has been made to include useful and appropriate citations. There may be some citations missing, or many unnecessary citations. The citations may be inconsistent in style or not include all the relevant information, but the original source can generally be found with little effort.
   1 Pts to > 0.0 Pts
Poor
 
There are citations in most places where they are needed, but there is not enough information to find the sources easily or citations are missing in many places where they are needed.
 0 Pts
Fail
No serious attempt has been made to include citations. Citations may be so badly written that it is very difficult to find the original source.

Slideshow for use at the International Seminar

Criterion        

Slideshow structure: the overall plan of the slideshow, with different sections as required.

 3 Pts to > 2.0 Pts
Excellent
 
The structure is clear and logical. It follows normal scientific conventions and the audience can understand the format easily. It is appropriate for the scientific content you will deliver.
 2 Pts to > 1.0 Pts
Good
 
The structure is clear and logical, but may have some minor problems that could confuse an audience, such as out-of-order information or missing sections.
 1 Pts to > 0.0 Pts
Acceptable
 
The structure is clear, but may not be the best choice for the content; alternatively, some parts of the structure are clear and appropriate whereas others are not clear and/or appropriate. Some significant areas may be missing, but most of the required information is presented.
 0 Pts
Fail
 
There is no obvious structure, or the structure is inappropriate for the content of the presentation. Alternatively, many sections are missing and the slides make no logical sense as a result.
Overall content of slides: the content, layout, design and use of different elements within slides throughout your presentation. This does not assess the scientific quality of the slide contents. 5 Pts to > 3.0 Pts
Excellent
 
Your slides are easy to understand and complement your spoken words very well. The use of images and text is clear. The amount of information is appropriate for the length of time the slides are displayed.
 3 Pts to > 1.0 Pts
Good
 
Your slides are sometimes clear, but are also sometimes difficult to understand, either because you include too much information on some of them, the text is too small, images are pixelated/distorted, you use images when it is not useful, etc.
 1 Pts to > 0.0 Pts
Acceptable
 
It is possible to follow your slides, but it is not easy. You may have used too much text on each slide, or images that are not very clear. Significant improvements are possible.
 0 Pts
Fail
 
In general, your slides are extremely difficult to follow. This may be due to the amount of information you include in each slide, the size of the text, the use of confusing images, etc.

Citations and acknowledgements: the inclusion of citations for all content that is not your original work; acknowledgements are given for appropriate support

 2 Pts to > 1.0 Pts
Excellent
 
Your acknowledgements are appropriate and contained in the correct place in the slideshow. You provide clear citations to all work that is obviously taken from elsewhere.
   1 Pts to > 0.0 Pts
Accpetable
 
You provide clear citations for most work that is clearly not your own original work; you may have missed one or two elements that must be accompanied by citations or your citations are not completely clear, but some attempt has been made to provide the relevant information. Your acknowledgements are good, but might include things that do not need to be acknowledged or may be in the wrong place in the slideshow.
 0 Pts
Fail
 
You give no citations for content that is obviously not your original work; you give acknowledgements for things that are completely unnecessary.

Slide design: the overall design of your slides, not including the content of individual slides.

 3 Pts to > 1.0 Pts
Excellent
 
Your slides have been designed to be clear, easy to read and to draw the audience's attention to the most important information contained in each slide.
   1 Pts to > 0.0 Pts
Acceptable
 
The slides are quite clear and can be understood, but you have not made it any easier to understand the content by choosing a good layout. This may include some unnecessary information on each slide (header and footer), a bad choice of colour scheme or typeface/font.
 0 Pts
Fail
 
There is no thought given to design for scientific communication. You have used inappropriate slide design, such as slides with too many unnecessary additions, such as pictures or text in the header and footer that detract from the ability of the audience to understand your scientific content. Your choice of colour scheme or typeface/font make it very difficult to understand the content of your slides.
Scientific content: the quality of the science included in your slides. This is assessed independently of the design of your slides. 5 Pts to > 3.0 Pts
Excellent
 
The slides contain a large amount of logical and easy-to-understand information that is scientifically correct.
 3 Pts to > 1.0 Pts
Good
 
Slides contain some scientific content and are fairly easy to understand, although some may be incorrect of may not be clear.
 1 Pts to > 0.0 Pts
Poor
 
There is little scientific content that can be understood from the slides, but some attempt has been made to present valid findings.
 0 Pts
Fail
 
The slides contain almost no scientific content or are so unclear that they cannot be understood easily.

Poster

Criterion        
Overall layout: the overall use of space, font size(s) and images in the poster to help communicate your scientific content 6 Pts to > 4.0 Pts
Excellent
 
The layout of the poster is logical and clear. It guides the reader through your content in a way that makes it easy to understand the information. The poster is easy to read at a distance of several metres. The use of images, tables and graphs is excellent and adds a good amount of information in a very easy-to-understand way.
 4 Pts to > 2.0 Pts
Good
 
There is a good balance between amount of content and ease of reading. Most of the poster is easily readable at a distance of several metres, but some elements cannot be read at such a distance. There are some non-text elements that add to the information in the poster, but these could either be made more effective or should be more in number.
 2 Pts to > 0.0 Pts
Poor
 
Some non-text elements are used, but not in a way that adds a lot of information to the text content of the poster. Some elements can be read at a distance of several metres, but most is too difficult to read unless the reader is close to the poster. There is some use of space and arrangement of text and images, but this could be improved significantly.
 0 Pts
Fail
 
It is not possible to read the poster unless you are within one metre of it. There is so much content that it is very difficult to understand or there is so much empty space that not enough information is contained in the poster to make any sense.
Use of design concepts: the use of colour, contrast and other graphical design concepts to help communicate the scientific content of your poster 6 Pts to > 4.0 Pts
Excellent
 
There is clever use of design concepts in the poster that make it easy to follow the scientific content in a logical and clear way. Where necessary, colour and patterns have been used to guide the user and/or to show differences and similarities in the scientific content of the poster. The poster is a pleasure to read and informative from several metres away.
 4 Pts to > 2.0 Pts
Good
 
Some design concepts have been used to help the reader follow the scientific content of the paper. In some ways, the information could be communicated more clearly by using colour or a different layout, but the poster is efficient overall.
 2 Pts to > 0.0 Pts
Poor
 
One or two design concepts are used to make the scientific content of the report easier to understand, but significant improvements are still possible by using more design concepts.
 0 Pts
Fail
 
There are no design concepts used in the poster. The poster is almost entirely a block of plain text with few or no images. There is little or now use of colour and no obvious order to the information.
Citations, title and personal information: the use of citations, acknowledgements, title, author information to support the main content of your poster and communicate this vital information to the audience.
 4 Pts to > 2.0 Pts
Excellent
 
The title is clear, concise and descriptive, an appropriate number of citations have been included with appropriate bibliographic information, author names are clearly displayed and any necessary acknowledgements are clear but not intrusive. No unnecessary authors, citations or acknowledgements are included.
   2 Pts to > 0.0 Pts
Acceptable
 
The title is too long or not easy enough to read; author names are difficult to find or unclear; there are too few citations, or citations are included unnecessarily, unnecessary acknowledgements are included; these elements take up a disproportionate amount of space on the poster.
 0 Pts
Fail
 
There are no citations or information that is obviously taken from other sources is not credited to the original authors. It is not possible to identify authors. There is no obvious title.
Scientific content: the scientific usefulness of the poster, including the presentation performed during the online seminar. A large amount of scientific content is not required to get full credit for this criterion. 4 Pts to > 2.0 Pts
Excellent
 
The poster contains logical and clear scientific content, with the quantity of content appropriate to the subject matter and the design of the poster.
   2 Pts to > 0.0 Pts
Acceptable
 
Good scientific content is presented, but is either unclear or is not an appropriate quantity - either very little or too much.
 0 Pts
Fail
 
The poster contains no scientific content or is so difficult to follow that it cannot be understood by readers.

Opposition report

Criterion        
Opposition report 5 Pts to >3 Pts
Excellent
The opposition report discusses the strengths and weaknesses in the research report you are assigned. At least one suggestion for improving the work is made. The questions are meaningful and relevant to the work.
 3 Pts to >1.0 Pts
Good
 
A concise summary of the report you are asked to oppose is submitted. Several relevant and clear observations are made, but strengths and weaknesses of the project are not clearly identified. Several questions that can be asked in the final seminar are included.
 1 Pts to > 0.0 Pts
Acceptable
 
A summary of the report you are asked to oppose is submitted, together with some basic comments and at least one question that could be asked.
 0 Pts
Incomplete
 
No report is submitted, or the report is severely lacking in detail. Questions are irrelevant or not at all useful. No attempt is made to offer suggestions to improve the work.

Presentation at the International Seminar

Criterion            
Audience engagement: whether or not you engage the audience in your presentation. This can take many forms and no particular method is required to achieve engagement, but is an essential part of any presentation. 2 to >1 Pts
Excellent
 
The audience feels part of your presentation and pays attention to you as a result. The audience feels as if the presentation is for them.
   1 to >0 Pts
Good
 
Some attempt is made to engage the audience and make them feel involved in the presentation.
     0 Pts
Fail
 
No attempt is made to engage the audience in the presentation. The speaker(s) go through their slides without connecting to the audience and the audience is bored as a result.
Response to questions: how you deal with questions from your opponents and the audience. 2 to >1 Pts
Excellent
 
Questions are answered concisely, efficiently and in an interesting way. If you are unable to answer, you discuss the question with the person asking it and reach a conclusion in an academic way.
   1 to >0 Pts
Good
 
The questions are answered to some extent or a discussion is started with the person asking the question (and some conclusion is then reached).
     0 Pts
Fail
 
The questions are not answered in any scientific way and no attempt is made at discussion.
Speech and language: how well your voice is heard, including how easy it is to understand technical words     1 to >0 Pts
Good
 
You voice can be heard and all technical terms can be easily understood.
     0 Pts
Fail
 
You are too loud or quiet so that the audience cannot hear you. Alternatively, the audience struggles to understand key terminology because of your voice.
Content: the scientific content of your presentation, excluding the content of your slides (which are assessed separately). 5 to >4 Pts
Excellent
 
The content of the presentation (excluding the slide show) is perfect for the audience. It is neither too basic nor too complex. Therefore, the audience feels both interested in the topic and learns new science. The science in the presentation is completely correct. The presentation is suitable for a major scientific conference for an audience of similar knowledge.
 4 to >3 Pts
Very good
 
The content of the presentation (excluding the slide show) is almost perfect for the audience.It is generally not too basic, although some parts of the presentation may be explained in unnecessary detail. Similarly, some advanced terms may be used without enough explanation. The audience is interested and learns something, but might be a little frustrated with the level of the presentation. The science contained in the presentation contains no major errors. The presentation may be suitable for an audience of a slightly different level of knowledge, or may be perfect with minor changes.
 3 to >2 Pts
Good
 
The content of the presentation (excluding the slide show) is good for the audience. Most of the content is appropriate, but some ideas may either require more explanation or be too basic to be interesting for the audience. The science may contain some errors, but still has value. With significant change,s the presentation will be suitable for a major scientific conference for an audience similar to that in the seminar.
 2 to >1 Pts
Acceptable
 
The content (excluding the slide show) fails to engage the audience, overall but does so in places. Major sections of the presentation are either too basic or too complex. As a result, the audience is either slightly bored or confused by the end of the presentation. However, parts of the presentation succeed in engaging the audience. Alternatively, there may be major scientific flaws in the presentation.
 1 to >0 Pts
Poor
 
The presentation (excluding the slide show) almost completely fails to engage the audience. The scientific content is either completely incorrect, far too basic or far too difficult for the audience. As a result, no information is communicated.

 0 Pts
Fail
 
No presentation is made, or the presentation is of such poor quality as to communicate precisely zero information.
Timekeeping: how well you keep to the specified time during your presentation 2 to >1 Pts
Excellent
 
The presentation is the correct length, within a reasonable error margin.
   1 to >0 Pts
Good
 
The presentation is slightly outside a reasonable range of time.
     0 Pts
Fail
 
The presentation is significantly too long or too short.

Opportunity to complete the requirements via supplementary examination

If a student achieves a score that is grade FX in the overall course, they shall have the opportunity to resubmit any assignment or presentation in the course that was graded "FX" to improve the score in that assignment and, as a result, improve their overall score for the course. The highest grade that shall be awarded for the course in such a case is "E". Should no assignments have been graded "FX", the student and examiner must agree on one or more assignments that canbe resubmitted to improve the overall course grade from "FX". The highest grade that shall be awarded for the course in such a case is "E".

Please note that if any student misses a presentation for a valid reason (e.g. illness, travel restriction, family funeral, mandatory attendance at another course event, etc.), the course leader may permit the student to give the presentation at an alternative forum.  The decision as to whether or not to make such an arrangement is solely that of the course leader and is made entirely at their discretion.  Please contact the course leader as soon as possible if you think you may be in this situation.  No applications for an alternative presentation forum shall be considered after the intended date of the original presentation, so contact the course leader in advance to make such a request. Any student missing a presentation for a reason that is not considered valid (e.g. forgot to attend, missed a flight due to reasonably avoidable circumstances, etc.) shall be considered to have failed that presentation with a grade "F" and a score of zero points. Failure to present at the final seminar without making alternative arrangements with the examiner will results in failing the course, as described in the section "Other requirements for final grade".

Opportunity to raise an approved grade via renewed examination

Should a student pass the course with a grade "E" or better, there is currently no opportunity to improve your grade by repeating any part of this examination.

Alternatives to missed activities or tasks

Should any student miss a deadline or any mandatory activity for a legitimate reason (clash with another mandatory session, illness, family emergency, etc.), they should contact the examiner to agree a suitable replacement exercise.

Reporting of exam results

Results for individual assignments shall be reported on Canvas as the course progresses.  As soon as practicable after the final assignment/presentation is graded, the overall course grades shall be calcualted and distributed to all students.  As soon as practicable after the final grades have been posted on Canvas, they shall be sent to be registered on Ladok.

The overall course grade shall be reported in a dedicated assignment on Canvas, called "Overall course grade".  The Canvas system always generates an overall course grade automatically, based on scores from all assignments.  It is intended in this course that this autmotically calcualted grade should be hidden (and the examiner shall attempt to ensure it is hidden on the system), but if you do see it for any reason, you should ignore it.  Only the grade in the dedicated assignment called "Overall course grade" is correct.

Ethical approach

  • All members of a group are responsible for the group's work.
  • In any assessment, every student shall honestly disclose any help received and sources used.
  • In an oral assessment, every student shall be able to present and answer questions about the entire assignment and solution.

Further information

Changes of the course before this course offering

  • The written report assignment has been changed to use a new template.  The report is now shorter and should resemble a typical journal article.

Communication during course

Course Coordinator

Teachers

Examiner

Round Facts

Start date

26 Aug 2024

Course offering

  • Autumn 2024-51350

Language Of Instruction

English

Offered By

ITM/Materials Science and Engineering

Contacts

Communication during course

For all matters concerning individual projects, students should contact the supervisor for that proejct. During your project, you should contact your supervisor. If this is not enough to solve your problem, you should contact the course leader through Canvas (Help [bottom of menu on left-hand side of the page] > Ask your instructor a question > [select this course form the list]).

For questions related to the course, teaching material or examinations, please contact the course leader and examiner (Chris Hulme) through the Canvas interface, as described in the previous paragraph.

For questions related to the Library services, or the related workshop, please contact KTH Library directly using the Canvas interface to contact their representative in the course, as described in the first paragraph of this section. You may also approach the library directly via the KTH Library website, or visit the library in person.

Course Coordinator

Teachers

Examiner