Master Thesis: Evaluation and Awarding Marks
Master Thesis: Evaluation and Awarding Marks
Master Thesis: Evaluation and Awarding Marks
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Master</strong> <strong>Thesis</strong>: Guidelines for <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Awarding</strong> <strong>Marks</strong><br />
Each <strong>Master</strong> thesis will be assessed by at least two persons (cf. evaluation on front page). The examiners will<br />
evaluate the <strong>Master</strong> thesis in accordance with the following criteria <strong>and</strong> guidelines. The final grade will be<br />
awarded after a discussion between the examiners.<br />
Crit eria<br />
The following questions pertaining to the individual criteria are not final <strong>and</strong> can vary in importance<br />
depending on the type of thesis.<br />
1. Independent scientific thinking /originality<br />
• Does the c<strong>and</strong>idate use <strong>and</strong> develop original ideas?<br />
• Are known ideas interwoven in a new way?<br />
• Are the core findings presented in clear statements?<br />
• Does the thesis incorporate critical appraisal?<br />
• Are the possibilities <strong>and</strong> limitations of the applied method discussed?<br />
2. Scientific know-how<br />
• Does the c<strong>and</strong>idate show sufficient familiarity with current knowledge (literature, experiments)?<br />
• Is reference made to gaps in knowledge, based on an analysis of literature?<br />
• Are the methods <strong>and</strong> techniques used properly described?<br />
• Are the methods adopted appropriate to the subject matter?<br />
• Has the research (field work, collecting data, experiments, models, etc.) been carried out carefully <strong>and</strong><br />
adequately?<br />
• Have the results been sufficiently tested by statistical analyses?<br />
3. Logic of the structure, scientific argumentation<br />
• Is the exposition of the topic clear, are the aims logically stated?<br />
• Does the thesis include clearly formulated hypotheses?<br />
• Does the structure of the thesis show a logical approach to the topic?<br />
• Are the results of the research <strong>and</strong> conclusions clearly <strong>and</strong> logically presented?<br />
• Have the central questions been answered?<br />
• Is a comparison made between the results <strong>and</strong> published data? Are the results placed in a broader<br />
context?<br />
• Are generalisations supported by facts?<br />
• Are the facts clearly distinguishable from hypotheses <strong>and</strong> suppositions?<br />
• Are issues mentioned that have not been dealt with?<br />
• Are proposals made for subsequent research projects?<br />
4. Form <strong>and</strong> presentation<br />
• Have the formal requirements for diagrams, tables, literary sources etc. been met?<br />
• Is there a comprehensive, informative summary?<br />
• Is the text scientifically correct, clearly underst<strong>and</strong>able <strong>and</strong> in a grammatically sound language?<br />
• Is the layout attractive for readers?<br />
5. Work process<br />
• Does the c<strong>and</strong>idate display discernible keenness to tackle the task?<br />
• Has the c<strong>and</strong>idate acquired appropriate knowledge?<br />
• Has the research been carried out independently?<br />
• Has critical appraisal been successfully incorporated?<br />
Aw arding Mar ks<br />
<strong>Marks</strong> or grades will be awarded on the following principles:<br />
- excellent, far above average, among the best 10% (grade 6)<br />
- very good, above average, only minor flaws (5.5)<br />
- good, well within average, certain flaws (5)<br />
- satisfactory, below average, several flaws (4.5)<br />
- barely satisfactory, below average, obvious flaws (4)<br />
- unsatisfactory, well below average, serious flaws (3)<br />
The c<strong>and</strong>idate is entitled to a discussion with the examiners or to a written report explaining the awarded<br />
marks.<br />
D-UWIS Guidelines for <strong>Evaluation</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Awarding</strong> <strong>Marks</strong>, July 2007