At the beginning of each seminar session the person who has written the paper will present it briefly, for about 10–15 minutes. After that the opponent in charge should make a suggestion for which are those 3–5 most significant issues that should be discussed in seminar. When making this suggestion it is useful to exploit comments of all participants. When it has been agreed which are the most significant issues to be discussed, it is time for the opponent in charge to continue in the chair of the meeting. Sessions are NOT meant to be dialogues between the author and opponent but the papers should be discussed together. That is why the opponent should think beforehand how to make an active and constructive session. It’s therefore a good idea to write down beforehand which person has put forward which idea. In that way you can also ask that person to present himself/herself his/her ideas. It also makes sense for everyone to take your own comments along to the seminar, so that you’ll remember what you have written.

Passing the seminar requires at least 80% attendance in the seminar. If you are absent from the seminar you still have to write a commentary.

Guides for writing seminar papers:

• The American Psychological Association’s Publication Manual (5th edition).
• DISCIPLINE’S INSTRUCTIONS FOR WRITING
• Hirsjärvi S, Remes P & Sajavaara P: Tutki ja kirjoita. Tammi: Helsinki.

Tips on writing comments:

The core of the paper:

Research questions and hypothesis:

• Are they derived from previous research and other relevant sources?
• Are they presented clearly and pithy?

Answers to the research questions:

• Are all research questions about being answered?
• What should be done so that the research questions will be answered?
• Is the paper meandering too much from the main topic?

Going through systematically the whole paper:

Title

• clear?
• fitting?
• pithy?
• interesting?
• distinctive?

Abstract

• Not necessary in seminar paper

Introduction

• Is the theoretical approach/background appropriate/sufficient?
• Is the relevant literature (current and essential sources) included?
• Is there something unnecessary?
• Is the argumentation proceeding logically?
• Is the division into paragraphs well-founded?
• Are the research questions/hypotheses traced justifiably?
• Are the research questions/hypotheses defined clearly?

Method

• Has the gathering of the research material been done in a meaningful way?
• Have all research methods been presented clearly and sufficiently?
• Is the size of research material suitable (or should there be more/less)?
• Is the research material treated in a meaningful way?

Results

• Is the presentation of the results clear and sufficient?
• Is the examination of the results going in the right direction?

Discussion

• Are all central issues being presented?

References

• Have all books and volumes mentioned in the reference list cited also in the text, and vice versa?
• Is the reference technique and reference list in order?

Language

• Is the language used good and vivid?

Finishing

• Are all tables and figures understandable as a separate entity?
• Are all tables and figures well formulated?
• Are there any careless mistakes in the text?

Minimum requirements for a commentary:

It is not enough for a commentary to e.g. generally praise the seminar paper, because the purpose is that the person who has written the seminar paper will get feedback that helps him/her to proceed with his/her work. It should become apparent from the comments that you have carefully looked at the paper and commented on its core issues.

At minimum each commentator has to attend to the following questions:

• What is the theoretical approach/background and how well it has been mastered in the seminar paper?
• Would some other theoretical approach be more reasonable or is something else needed as supplement?
• Has the research material been chosen in a well-grounded way, and what kind of conclusions one can draw from it?
• Is the argumentation in the paper proceeding logically?
• Can the paper be considered to be good scientific text?
• Detailed proposals for improvement.
• Comments and corrections relating to language must not be in the main part in commentary, but it is good to touch up on them as well.

What is a good way for giving feedback?

The feedback should be given in the same way, as you would like to get it yourself. So it should be given in the matter-of-fact and constructive way. In addition, it’s good to keep in mind that all people are different as it concerns taking feedback. However, the seminar is more effective if the issues demanding improvement or corrections are interfered at latest at this point. This means that you should not avoid the criticism. Responsible feedback requires attending to a paper carefully. This means, among other things, that at least the responsible opponent has to be ready to go into the source books of the paper.