The following is an incomplete list of topics covered in the course.

• Scientific knowledge
• Definitions 
• Hypothesis testing
• Observations and measurements
• Experiments
• Models
• Statistical reasoning
• Causes and explanations

• Engineering design

• Qualitative methods
• Research ethics
• Risk and risk assessment

The course consists of lectures, assignments, seminars, a project part, and a exam.

After having completed the course, the student should, with regards to the theory and methodology of science be able to:

· Identify definitions and descriptions of concepts, theories and problem areas, as well as identify the correct applications of these concept and theories.

· Account for concepts, theories and general problems areas, as well as apply concepts and theories to specific cases.

· Critically discuss the definitions and applications of concepts and theories as they apply to specific cases of scientific research.

These learning outcomes are examined via seminars, and in a written exam.

After having completed the course, the student should also be able to (applies to students that do not take the master’s programme medical engineering (TMLEM):

· Summarise and present research reports or scientific articles in a way that makes them accessible to a non-expert audience.

· Account for standard structural and qualitative criteria for scientific writing and apply these to research reports or scientific articles.

· Identify and critically discuss specific theoretical and methodological problems in research reports or scientific articles.

These learning outcomes are examined in writing via a project part.

Students from the master’s programme medical engineering (TMLEM) should be able to:

· Account for and apply the most common theories and methods of applied ethics and account for their relevance for medical technology.

· Carry out independent moral reflections concerning practical problems in the ethics of medical technology.

These learning outcomes are examined orally and in writing via a project part.

Below follows an outline of the course learning activities. Detailed descriptions of the learning activities are found in later sections in this course memo.

• One lecture on campus: Introduction and Scientific Knowledge.
• Ten pre-recorded video lectures. Each video lecture has an associated voluntary lecture quiz and a text transcription. Video lectures are included in the TimeEdit course schedule as a planning recommendation but can be viewed throughout the course. Video lecture quizzes however, have deadlines.
• Two flipped classroom sessions on campus related to a subset of the video lectures. Before each flipped classroom session, you post a question related to the relevant video lectures on a discussion board and upvote questions posted by other students that you wish to be discussed on the flipped classroom sessions. The lecturer selects among the questions and answers these during the flipped classroom sessions.
• Four seminars on campus. Each seminar covers selected course contents from the video lectures and course readings. Before attending each seminar, you complete a mandatory seminar preparation quiz. On the seminar you work on group exercises and discussions. You take one seminar per seminar week.
• Three exercise sessions on campus.
• A project work which includes essay and peer-feedback submissions. Step by step you will learn both how to popularize the content of a scientific article in your field of study, and to use the course concepts to point out methodological strengths and weaknesses. The final product is an essay you write with other people from the course.

Lectures

This course includes eleven lectures. Lecture 1 is held on campus and lectures 2-11 are available as videos via Canvas and can be viewed at any time during the course. The placement of video lectures in the TimeEdit course schedule is a planning suggestion for when you might view them.

Each of the video lectures has an associated lecture quiz with a deadline. If you complete lecture quizzes with passing score upon the deadline, you receive course bonus points for the exam (see section on Schedule and see Canvas for quiz deadlines). For more information on bonus points, see section on Bonus point system below.

1. Introduction and scientific knowledge (campus lecture), course week 1
2. Scientific inferences (59 minutes) (flipped classroom 1), course week 1
3. Observation and measurement (76 minutes) (flipped cl. 1), course week 2
4. Experiments (49 minutes) (flipped classroom 2), course week 2
5. Models (62 minutes) (flipped classroom 2), course week 3
6. Statistics (62 minutes), course week 3
7. Explanations and causes (81 minutes), course week 4
8. Engineering design (76 minutes) course week 5
9. Qualitative methods (93 minutes), course week 5
10. Research ethics (103 minutes), course week 6
11. Anticipating risk in science and engineering (85 minutes), course week 6

Flipped classrooms

The function of the flipped classroom format is to offer an opportunity for students to receive clarifications from the lecturer on lecture contents. The flipped classroom sessions are intended for addressing questions on course topics that students find unclear, challenging or otherwise interesting.

There are two flipped classroom sessions on campus, each based on two video lectures. Flipped classroom 1 focuses on the lectures on scientific inferences (lecture 2), and on observation and measurement (lecture 3). Flipped classroom 2 focuses on the lectures on experiments (lecture 4) and on models (lecture 5).

Each flipped classroom session has an associated discussion board. Before each flipped classroom session, you post a question for the lecturer on the board related to the relevant video lectures, and you upvote questions posted by other students that you would like the lecturer to address during the session. See section on Schedule and see Canvas for further instructions and deadlines.

The lecturer selects a set of questions from the discussion board and devotes the flipped classroom sessions to answering these questions. During the sessions, you will also be invited to participate on voluntary exercise activities.

If you complete the flipped classroom activities, you receive course bonus points for the exam. For more information on bonus points, see section on Bonus point system below.

It is possible to attend flipped classroom sessions without having posted on the discussion board and without participating on exercises in the classroom, but this will yield no bonus points.

The flipped classroom sessions are taken together with students from other, similar courses.

Bonus point system

Completing video lecture quizzes with a passing score, as well as participating on the flipped classroom activities, gives course bonus points for the exam. Bonus point activities are voluntary, optional activities intended at incentivising students to engage with the course contents continuously throughout the course.

Each video lecture has an associated video lecture quiz, comprised of 15 questions. If you complete a quiz with a 14 point score or higher, All video lecture quizzes have deadlines (See section on Schedule and see Canvas for deadlines). There is no limit on number of attempts up until the quiz deadlines.

Course bonus points can also be awarded for the two flipped classrooms. Attending the flipped classroom session and carrying out tasks as per instructed by the lecturer results in 0.5 course bonus points per each of the two flipped classrooms.

In order to make the number of bonus points fit the exam format, course bonus points are scaled in the following way before the exam (C = course bonus points, E = exam bonus points): E = C * 5/6, rounded up to the closest .5-value. Example: 4.5 course bonus points will be scaled as 4.5 * 5/6 = 3.75, then rounded up to 4 exam points. You can maximally obtain 5 exam bonus points.

Exam bonus points are added to part 1 of the exam. For example, if part 1 has a maximum score of 15 points, then 3.5 exam bonus points plus 10 points on part 1 results in a total score of 13.5 points on part 1 of the exam. 4 exam bonus points plus 13 points on part 1 results in a total score of 15 points on part 1 of the exam.

For more information about the exam, see section on Examination and completion.

Bonus points collected during one and the same course period are valid for, and only for, the scheduled exam and the corresponding re-exam for that period.

Seminars

The course includes a mandatory seminar series comprised of four seminars. Each seminar covers selected course contents from the video lectures and course readings, and following the first seminar, each subsequent seminar connects to the previous seminars. Seminars are intended as a collaborative learning activity where you practice critically discussing course contents and practice applying course contents to cases, with instruction and support from teaching staff. The overall topics covered during the seminar series are as follows:

1. Definitions, operationalizations and hypotheses (course week 3)
2. Designing a scientific study (course week 4)
3. Interpretation, analysis and evidence (course week 6)
4. Risk and research ethics (course week 7).

Since completion of the seminar series yields course credits, the seminars feature mandatory activities: (1) preparing and passing a seminar quiz, and (2) actively participating on the seminar. Missing activities result in seminar incompletion and thus no seminar course credits.

Before each seminar, you read the assigned readings (reading instructions available on Canvas). Before attending each seminar, you must also pass a mandatory seminar preparation quiz (See section on Schedule and see Canvas for deadlines). There is no limit on number of quiz attempts up until the quiz deadline. You must complete the quiz with a passing score of 14 points before the deadline (indicated in Canvas as “Passed”).

The preparation quizzes are intended to ensure that all participants come prepared to the seminar for a more rewarding seminar learning experience. If you attend the seminar without completing the preparation quiz beforehand, you will not be marked as attending.

On the seminar, you will be working together with other students on exercises as per instructed by the teacher. The exercises are formulated in such a way as to promote critical reflection and discussion, as well as to practice application of course concepts to case scenarios.

You are expected to engage actively with the course contents and work on the exercises during the seminar. Passive attendance on the seminar will be marked as not attending. Active participation on the seminar does not mean that you are expected to demonstrate full proficiency of course contents. Rather, it means that you are expected to have properly engaged with the relevant course material beforehand and made an honest attempt at understanding it. Arisen questions and reflections can be addressed on the seminar.

For information on what to do if you have not completed a preparation quiz or actively attended on a seminar, see the section on Examination and completion.

Note that the TimeEdit course schedule shows multiple seminar slots for every seminar week. The different slots correspond to different seminar groups. You will join only one seminar group upon course start and your group takes only one seminar per seminar week. Instructions on how to join a seminar group as well as a seminar group schedule will be available on Canvas after the course starts and before the start of the seminar series.

Seminar contents and reading instructions.
All the texts can be found on Canvas.

Seminar 1 – Definitions, operationalizations and hypotheses.

Texts:

• Grüne-Yanoff, Till – Justified Method Choice, chapters 1, 2, 3, 13
• Optional reading: Hansson, Sven Ove – Art of Doing Science: sections 2.2-2.8, 3.1-3.2, 5.0-5.1, and 5.8

Topics relevant for the seminar: 

• Stipulative and lexical definitions
• Narrowness and broadness (as applied to definitions)
• Vagueness
• Hypotheses (and their quality criteria)
• Direct, aided and indirect observation
• Operationalization
• Accuracy and precision (as qualities of observations and measurements)
• Measurement error (random and systematic error)
• Convergent validity and divergent validity

Seminar 2 – Designing a scientific study.

Texts:

• Grüne-Yanoff, Till – Justified Method Choice, chapters 4, 5.
• Optional reading: Hansson, Sven Ove – Art of Doing Science: sections 3.7, 4.2-4, and 5.1-3.

Topics relevant for the seminar:

• Experiment, observational studies and model studies
• Mill’s method of difference
• Internal validity and external validity
• Experimental control
• Constancy, elimination and effect separation
• Randomization
• Control group and treatment group
• Observer influence
• Confirmation bias
• Blinding
• Epistemic virtues of models (Parameter precision, Similarity, Robustness, Simplicity, Tractability, Transparency)
• Analogies (positive, negative, neutral)

Seminar 3: Interpretation, analysis and evidence.

Texts:

• Grüne-Yanoff, Till – Justified Method Choice: chapters 2, 6, 7.
• "Seminar 3 Case", see below.
• Optional reading: Hansson, Sven Ove – Art of Doing Science: sections 1.6-7, 3.7, 3.9, 5.3-5, 5.7, 7, 8 and the box on p. 24.

Topics relevant for the seminar: 

• Repeatability, reproducibility and replicability
• Statistical evaluation
• Statistical significance
• Correlation and causality
• Explanatory virtues (Accuracy [of explanations], Non-sensitivity, Precision in the explanans, Precision of the explanandum, Cognitive salience)
• Duhem-Quine thesis
• Ad-hoc hypothesis
• Falsificationism (Popper)
• Inductive and deductive inferences

Seminar 4: Risk and research ethics.

Texts:

• Grüne-Yanoff, Till – Justified Method Choice, chapters 8, 9, 11, 12.
• “On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research”, National academy of Sciences.
• Ahlin, Jesper, “Ethical Thinking”.
• Optional reading: Hansson, Sven Ove - Art of Doing Science: Section 9.

Topics relevant for the seminar: 

• Functions (assigned and ascribed)
• The design process
• Qualitative data
• Controlling observer effects
• Case study
• Gift authorship and ghost authorship
• Scientific misconduct (falsification, fabrication and plagiarism)
• Informed consent
• Deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics
• Precautionary principle
• Decision making (under certainty/risk/ignorance/deep uncertainty)

Project part (3 credits)

In the project part you will practice two skills that are important for any engineer or scientist. These skills are presentation and evaluation of scientific research. The project part corresponds to the last three learning outcomes (see learning-outcomes heading). You will be assigned an article to work with throughout the entire project. The project part is divided into several tasks that are grouped into three different blocks.

1. Block 1 (individual work): Popularizing an item (concept or method) from the article.
2. Block 2 (individual work): Discussing one methodological strength and one weakness from the study described in the article.
3. Block 3 (group work): Popularizing the entire article as well as discussing methodological strengths and weaknesses of the study described in the article.

The overall purpose is to practice on 1) presenting a popularized presentation of scientific research, and 2) critically evaluate methodological aspects of scientific research. If you fail the project part, you will have to do the project part anew in another period to complete the course. Failing any task means failing the entire project part. If a submission is not good enough to pass but still shows clear promise, you will be asked to revise.

Schedule and Deadlines. Here is the schedule and deadlines for the project part. For a specific deadline of a project-part assignment, look on the information page on Canvas.

Project Part Introduction Video Lecture – Course week 1

Block 1:
Deadline Task A – Course week 2
Deadline Task B – Course week 3

Block 2:
Deadline task A – Course week 4
Deadline task B – Course week 5

Block 3:
Deadline Task A - Group Work – Course week 6
Deadline Task A - Individual assignment – Course week 6

Deadline Task B - Group Work – Course week 7
Deadline Task B - Individual assignment – Course week 7

Deadline Task C Final Submission - Group Work – Course week 9
Deadline Task C Final Submission - Individual assignment – Course week 9

Block 1 – Task A and B

Task A of block 1 is the following. After you have picked and read your article, your job is to create a popularized presentation of one item from the article. An item should be either a central method or a central concept for the scientific study described in the article. For example, if the research you are reading utilizes a regression analysis as a method, you could choose this method as your item. You begin creating your essay by instructing an online AI language model (e.g. ChatGPT or similar) to summarize and explain a popularized presentation of the item you have chosen from the article. When you ask the model to do this, also instruct it to utilize communicative tools such as metaphors, analogies, and parables. From the result you get, you then include a cohesive part of the model's answer in the document you are about to submit. No more than 400 words can be included from the model's answer. As a new section in your document, you are then supposed to either (i) improve the model's answer by making it more understandable for the target audience (the ideal idea of a target audience is a first year KTH student), or (ii) explain why the model's answer suffices in order for the target audience to understand your chosen item. Either way you go, you are expected to clearly motivate why your improvement/the model's answer meets a sufficient level of understanding in the target audience. You do this by explaining how a certain communicative tool, e.g. a certain parable, invokes understanding in a targeted audience. Remember that the task here is to make a popular presentation. That said, try to make your text less abstract, dry, and technical. Avoid including specialized technical terms, complicated graphs, equations, formulas, etc. The grading teacher will assess your essay on these grounds: How do you justify and explain that a certain communicative tool gives understanding? Your improvement and/or explanation should be 400-700 words long.           

Task B of block 1 is the following. After you have submitted your document and the deadline has passed, you will write a peer-review for one other student's task A. Writing fruitful, charitable, and constructive feedback is an important academic task, and you won't be getting a pass on each respective block without having written a serious peer-review. As a helping hand, you can use the following recommended review scheme when writing your review.

• General impression, context and content (min. 50 words).
  1. Are technical terms explained and made understandable? What could have been explained better?
  2. Do you think that the target audience could understand the text? What could be a problem in understanding?
  3. Comment on parts you think are well explained, and point out what could be made clearer.
• Structure and outline (min. 50 words)
  1. Is there a clear introduction that makes you want to read it? How could it have been improved?
  2. Is there a logical sequence, a “red thread”, in the text? How could the structure have been made clearer?
  3. Is the end of the text (the conclusion) clear, or does it just stop? What would be a good conclusion?
• Language and formatting (min. 50 words)
  1. Is the language in the text dry and complicated, or is it lively and pedagogical? Suggest an improvement.
  2. Are there any spelling or grammatical errors that make it hard to understand the text? What in particular?

Task C of block 1 is the following. If the grading teacher judges that your essay doesn't meet the criteria for a pass, you will be instructed to revise your essay accordingly. The teacher will comment on your text and indicate what you need to do in order to pass block 2.

Block 2 – Task A, B and C

Task A of block 2 is the following. Working with the same article, your job now is to write a methodological evaluation in which you critically discuss two method choices done in the article. One of these method choices are to be considered a methodological strength in your opinion, and one method choice are to be considered a methodological weakness in your opinion. You are, again, allowed to use AI language models (e.g. ChatGPT) for this, but you must clearly explain, discuss, and motivate why you consider each method choice to be a strength or weakness, and you must also correctly apply relevant course terms for this purpose. Apart from this, you must also compare each method choice you discuss with a similar method choice from another article in a similar field of study. That is, you could, for example, better show why some method choice ought to be considered a strength by comparing how the method enables data that couldn't be generated in another, but similar, article (maybe because the other article didn't utilize the particular method). A tip is to either think back to some earlier article you have read in your previous studies, or scan through the reference list in the article you are working with in order to find some other relevant article. The grading teacher will assess your essay on these grounds: How do you justify and explain that a certain method choice ought to be considered a strength/weakness? Your essay on block 2 should be 700-1000 words long.  

Task B of block 2 is the following. Just as in block 1, you are now supposed to write peer-reviews on two other students' block 2 submissions. You will be assigned two other students' respective essay, and you submit your feedback on their respective submission (in the same way you did on block 1). Similar to block 1, here's a recommended feedback scheme you can utilize when writing your review.

• General impression, context and content (min. 50 words)
  1. Are methodological terms used and utilized correctly? Are there any missing which you would expect?
  2. Does the text explain why the strength is a strength and the weakness is a weakness? If yes, show how it is done, and if no show what is missing.
  3. Comment on parts you think are well explained, and point out what could be made clearer, to help the student improve the text.
• Do you agree with the arguments made in the text (that is: do you agree that the weakness is a weakness and that the strength is a strength)?
  1. Structure and outline (min. 50 words)
  2. Is there a clear introduction that makes you want to read it? How could it be improved?
  3. Is there a logical sequence, a “red thread”, in the text? What different structure could you imagine?
• Is the end of the text (the conclusion) clear, or does it just stop? What would be a good conclusion?
  1. Language and formatting (min. 50 words)
  2. Is the language in the text dry and complicated, or is it lively and pedagogical? What would have helped with the readability?
  3. Are there any spelling or grammatical errors that make it hard to understand the text?

Task C of block 2 is the following. If the grading teacher judges that your essay doesn't meet the criteria for a pass, you will be instructed to revise your essay accordingly. The teacher will comment on your text and indicate what you need to do in order to pass block 2.

Block 3 – Task A, B and C

Block 3 is a group work. Therefore, before block 3 begins (basically as soon as you are done with block 2) you join a group with other students working with the same article as you. You find the available groups under "people" in Canvas. The groups are named after the abbreviation of a certain program. If you for some reason cannot work in a group, you join the "group" named "individual" instead. If you work alone, you will still have to do the same tasks as those in a group, but the required length of your final essay will be slightly shorter.

Task A of block 3 is the following. Together with your group, your job is to put together an essay in which you carry out two things. You will:

Write a popularized presentation of the article you work with. This means writing a longer presentation as compared to what you did in block 1, as well as having a larger focus than merely one item (concept or method). Again (and as in block 1), you are supposed to utilize analytical tools such as metaphors, parables, analogies, etc. You are allowed to utilize AI language models (ChatGPT, etc.) for this, but we are demanding that you explain and give reasons for why something is a good analogy, parable, metaphor, etc. Remember that the task here is to make a popular presentation. That said, try to make your text less abstract, dry, and technical. Avoid including specialized technical terms, complicated graphs, equations, formulas, etc. This part of the essay should, roughly, be around 2000 words (1500 words if you are working individually), and any AI-written text is included in this number.

Write a methodological evaluation in which you critically evaluate the article's methodology. That is, you should basically do the same thing you did in block 2 but on a larger scale, including all relevant things from the article (as compared to merely focusing on one methodological strength and one weakness). You are, again, expected to correctly apply relevant course concepts when arguing for why one should consider certain method choices as strengths, and certain method choices as weaknesses. This criterion applies equally well if you decide to utilize AI language models for this part as well (this implies that you are allowed to use such tools). Apart from this, you must, again, also compare at least one strength and one weakness you discuss with a similar method choice from another article in a similar field of study. You are, of course, allowed to utilize the same article and the same comparison someone utilized in block 2. The same goes for the discussed strengths and weaknesses in general: These can be the same you discussed in block 2. We will evaluate this part of your essay on the grounds of how well you explain and give reasons for why you consider a certain method choice to be a strength or a weakness, as well as how well you apply relevant course concepts in your methodological discussion. This part of your essay should, roughly, be around 3000 words (2000 if you write individually), and any AI-written text is included in this number.

Task B of block 3 is the following. As with block 1 and 2, but now as a group, you will write a peer-review of another group's block 3 essay. This feedback is required to be a bit longer as compared to the feedback you individually gave on block 1 and block 2. You submit your group's peer-review in the same way you did on block 1 and 2. You can utilize the recommended peer-review scheme for this task as well.

Task C of block 3 is the following. Based on the feedback you got from your peers (as well your own, new, insights), you now have the opportunity to revise your essay before you submit it for evaluation and grading. Make sure to submit your final essay in the correct place. You are supposed to submit on a separate assignment page on Canvas (not the same page where you submitted task A on block 3). The assignment is named "Block 3: Task C - Final submission group work" ("Block 3: Task C - Final submission individual work" if you work individually).

Exercise sessions

The course offers exercise sessions which are extra opportunities to practice on the course content. They are held on campus (see KTH schedule) or online and shared with other course codes. They are voluntary and have no associated submissions. More information can be found on Canvas.

Expected workload

Expected workload is calculated based on number of course credits per period.

7.5 ECTS one period: 20 h /week

Schedule

The course schedule is available in TimeEdit via www.kth.se/schema. To find your schedule, log in and choose "Course" in the drop-down menu and search for your course code. Here you can also see what type of course activity it is. For example if it is a Digital Pre-Recorded Video Lecture, or Digital on Zoom. If the course activity has a room name or code (e.g. F1 or L43) then it is on Campus. Note that this schedule does not include submission deadlines, nor the seminar group schedule with one slot per group. The TimeEdit course schedule displays all seminar slots. The seminar group schedule with one slot per group will be determined after the student group sign-up is completed. The group sign-up starts when the course starts. Instructions for sign-up and group schedule will be available on Canvas.

Overall information on essay/project part submission deadlines, seminar preparation quiz deadlines, video lecture quiz deadlines, and deadlines for posting questions before flipped classroom sessions can be found in this document. The exact dates and times for submission deadlines are available on Canvas.

Seminar preparation quizzes (mandatory)

Seminar preparation quizzes open Monday the week before each respective seminar. You must pass the quiz before attending your scheduled seminar. Seminar group schedule is determined after course start and made available on Canvas. See general course schedule in TimeEdit for all seminar slots.

Video lecture quizzes (not mandatory but generates bonus points on the exam)

All video lecture quizzes open on the Monday the week before the scheduling of a given lecture and close on the Friday the week after the scheduling of the lecture.

Flipped classroom question posting

Deadline for posting and upvoting questions on the discussion boards are:

Flipped classroom session 1: 2 workdays before the scheduled session.
Flipped classroom session 2: 3 workdays before the scheduled session.

The exact dates and times for all course activities with submission deadlines are available on Canvas.

All material is avaiable through the course platform.

The main text for the course is:

• Justified Method Choice - Scientific Methodology for Scientists and Engineers by Till Grüne-Yanoff. Based on the video lectures.

In addition, there are three supplemental texts:

• Some Issues in the Philosophy of Technology, by Sven Ove Hansson.
• On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, which is an excerpt from a text by the National Academy of Sciences.
• Ethical Thinking by Jesper Ahlin.

Finally, there is one additional optional text, mainly targeting the same topics as the main course text:

• The Art of Doing Science by Sven Ove Hansson.

In addition to above mentioned readings, you may be asked to read short texts in preparation for some seminars. All course readings will be available in pdf file format on Canvas together with associated reading instructions. The readings cannot be bought as physical books, but you are welcome to print them.

Students at KTH with a permanent disability can get support during studies from Funka:

Funka - compensatory support for students with disabilities

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

• PRO1 - Project, 3.0 credits, Grading scale: P, F
• SEM1 - Seminars, 1.5 credits, Grading scale: P, F
• TENB - Written exam, 3.0 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.

A student can be examined in SEM1 with written assignments that replace attendance at seminars, provided that an agreement is in place for the student to take the course remotely.

PRO1 - Project, 3.0 credits

SEM1 - Seminars, 1.5 credits

TENA - Examination, 3.0 credits

Fullfilled seminar requirements, project requirements and written exam.

There is an opportunity to raise an approved grade via renewed examination at the re-exam or a later exam date. Re-exams are marked as such in the schedule at www.kth.se/schema. Apply by e-mail to kursexp@abe.kth.se. Include your personal number and course code, as well as the date when you wish to take the re-exam.

If you are unable to attend one or more seminars on particular times and dates, you can join other groups (if there are any) than your own for that/those seminar(s) and even if the group(s) are full - but e-mail the teacher for the relevant seminar first and make sure it's OK. If you do not get an answer in time from the teacher, just ask directly on the relevant seminar. You can also always switch seminar group completely in the People section, and the Seminar Groups tab, if there are vacant spots without notifying anyone. If there are no other groups to join that fits your schedule, you might be able to take the seminar with another TaMoS version that week (e.g. search for AK2036 or AK2030 on KTH schedule). The content of those seminars is the same. If you want to do this, or have any questions, please contact your course coordinator.

If you fail or are unable to attend one or more of the seminars, you can sign up for a compensation seminar, offered towards the end of the course. See course schedule in TimeEdit for scheduling of the compensation seminars. Alternatively, you may re-register and attend remaining seminars during some other course period, conditional on that the seminar is offered in that period. If you complete the seminar module over the course of more than one period, please inform the course coordinator that you have passed all seminars.

If you miss or fail the exam, you may take the corresponding re-exam. It may also be possible to take the exam during another period. Note however that any bonus points collected during a course period are only valid for the exam and re-exam for that period. If you wish to take the exam after the designated exam or re-exam, check which periods the course is offered in and see corresponding examination dates. Note that you must register on the course and sign up for the exam in order to take the exam.

Exam results will be communicated to students within 15 workdays following the day of the exam. This might not be met if there is a need to validate a submission or there is suspicion of cheating. 

• 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.