Appendix E. Thesis evaluation form
Wageningen University
This document is released under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Netherlands License
Item Mark for item 2-3, 4-5, 6, 7,
8, 9-10
1 Research competence (40%) *.
1.1. Commitment and perseverance
Student is not motivated. Student escapes
work and gives up regularly. Student has little motivation. Tends to be
distracted easily. Has given up once or twice. Student is motivated at times, but
often sees the work as a compulsory task. Is distracted from thesis work now
and then. The student is motivated. Overcomes an occasional setback with help
of the supervisor. The student is motivated and/or overcomes an occasional
setback on his own and considers the work as his “own” project. The student is
very motivated, goes at length to get the most out of the project. Takes complete
control of his own project. Considers setbacks as an extra motivation.
1.2. Initiative and creativity
Student shows no initiative or new ideas at
all. Student picks up some initiatives
and/or new ideas suggested by others (e.g. supervisor), but the selection is
not motivated. Student shows some initiative and/or together with the
supervisor develops one or two new ideas on minor parts of the research. Student
initiates discussions on new ideas with supervisor and develops one or two own ideas
on minor parts of the research. Student has his own creative ideas on
hypothesis formulation, design or data processing. Innovative research methods and/or
data-analysis methods developed. The scientific problem has been formulated by
the student with limited or no support from supervisor.
1.3. Independence The
student can only perform
the project properly after repeated
detailed instructions and with direct help from the supervisor. The student
needs frequent instructions and well-defined tasks from the supervisor and the
supervisor needs careful checks to see if all tasks have been performed. The
supervisor is the main responsible for setting out the tasks, but the student
is able to perform them mostly independently. Student selects and plans the tasks
together with the supervisor and performs these tasks on his own. Student plans and performs tasks mostly
independently, asks for help from the supervisor when needed. Student plans and
performs tasks independently and organizes his sources of help independently.
No critical self-reflection at all. No
critical self-reflection at all. Student is able to reflect on his functioning
with the help of the supervisor only. The student occasionally shows critical
self-reflection. Student actively performs critical self-reflection on some
aspects of his functioning. Student
actively performs critical self-reflection on various aspects of his own functioning
and performance.
1.4. Efficiency in working with data
Note: depending on the characteristics of the
thesis work, not all three aspects (experimental work, data analysis and model
development) may be relevant and some may be omitted
Experimental work
Student is not able to set up and/or
execute an experiment. Student is able to execute detailed instructions to some
extent, but errors are made often, invalidating (part of) the experiment. Student
is able to execute a methodology that has been designed by someone else (without
critical assessment of sources of error and uncertainty). Student is able to execute a methodology that
has been designed by someone else. Takes sources of error and uncertainty into
account in a qualitative sense. Student is able to judge the setup of a
scientific methodology and to develop modifications if needed. Takes into
account sources of error and uncertainty quantitatively. Student is able to
setup or modify a methodology exactly tailored to answering the research
questions. Quantitative consideration of sources of error and uncertainty.
Execution of the methodology is flawless.
Data analysis
Student is lost when using data. Is not
able to use a spreadsheet program or any other appropriate data- processing
program. Student is able to organize the data, but is not able to perform
checks and/or simple analyses. Student is able to organize data and perform
some simple checks; but the way the data are used does not clearly contribute
to answering of the research questions and/or he is unable to analyse the data independently.
Student is able to organize the data, perform some basic checks and perform
basic analyses that contribute to the research question. Student is able to
organize the data, perform commonly used checks and perform some advanced
analyses on the data. Student is able to organize the data, perform thorough checks
and perform advanced and original analyses on the data.
Model development
Student is not able to make any
modification/addition to an existing model. Student modifies an existing model,
but errors occur and persist. No validation. Student is able to make minor
modifications (say a single formula) to an existing model. Superficial validation
or no validation at all. Student is able to make major modifications to an existing
model, based on literature. Validation using some basic measures of quality. Student is able to make major modifications to
an existing model, based on literature or own analyses. Validation using
appropriate statistical measures. Student is able to develop a model from
scratch, or add an important new part to an existing model. Excellent theoretical
basis for modelling as well as use of advanced validation methods.
1.5. Handling supervisor's comments and development
of research skills
Student does not pick up suggestions and
ideas of the supervisor. The supervisor needs to act as an instructor and/or supervisor
needs to suggest solutions for problems. Student incorporates some of the
comments of the supervisor, but ignores other without arguments. Student
incorporates most or all of the supervisor's comments. Supervisor's comments
are weighed by the student and asked for when needed. Supervisor's comments are
critically weighed by the student and asked for when needed, also from other
staff members or students. Knowledge and insight of the student (in relation to
the prerequisites) is insufficient and the student is not able to take
appropriate action to remedy this. There is some progress in the research
skills of the student, but suggestions of the supervisor are also ignored occasionally.
The student is able to adopt some skills as they are presented during
supervision. The student is able to adopt skills as they are presented during
supervision and develops some skills independently as well. The student is able
to adopt new skills mostly independently, and asks for assistance from the supervisor
if needed. The student has knowledge and insight on a scientific level, i.e. he
explores solutions on his own, increases skills and knowledge where necessary.
1.6. Keeping to the time schedule
Final version of thesis or colloquium more
than 50% of the nominal period overdue without a valid reason (force majeure). Final
version of thesis or colloquium at most 50% of the nominal period overdue (without
a valid reason). Final version of thesis or colloquium at most 25% of nominal
period overdue (without valid reason). Final version of thesis or colloquium at
most 10% of nominal period overdue (without valid reasons). Final version of
thesis or colloquium at most 5% of nominal period overdue (without good
reasons). Final version of thesis and colloquium
finished within planned period (or overdue but with good reason). No time
schedule made. No realistic time schedule. Mostly realistic time schedule, but
no timely adjustment of time schedule. Realistic time schedule, with some
adjustments (but not enough or not all in time) in times only. Realistic time
schedule, with timely adjustments. Realistic
time schedule, with timely adjustments of both time and tasks
2. Thesis report (50%) *
2.1. Relevance research, clearness goals, delineation
No link is made to existing research on the
topic. No research context is described. The context of the topic at hand is
described in broad terms but there is no link between what is known and what
will be researched. The link between the thesis research and existing research
does not go beyond the information provided by the supervisor. Context of the
research is defined well, with input from the student. There is a link between
the context and research questions. Context of the research is defined sharply
and to-the- point. Research questions emerge directly from the described
context. Thesis research is positioned sharply in the relevant scientific
field. Student is able to indicate the novelty and innovation of the research.
There is no researchable research question
and the delineation of the research is absent. Most research questions are unclear,
or not researchable and the delineation of the research is weak At least either
the research questions or the delineation of the research are clear. The
research questions and the delineation are mostly clear but could have been defined
sharper at some points. The research questions are clear and researchable and the
delineation is clear. The research questions are clear and formulated to-the- point
and limits of the research are well-defined.
2.2. Theoretical underpinning, use of
literature
No discussion of underlying theory. There is some discussion of underlying theory,
but the description shows serious errors. Student has found the relevant
theory, but the description has not been tailored to the research at hand or
shows occasional errors. Student has
found the relevant theory, and has been partially successful in tailoring the
description to the research at hand. Few errors occur. Student has found the relevant theory, made a synthesis
of it, and has been successful in tailoring the description to the research at hand.
Clear, complete and coherent overview of relevant theory on the level of an
up-to-date review paper. Exactly tailored to the research at hand. No
peer-reviewed/primary scientific papers in reference list except for those
already suggested by the supervisor. Only a couple of peer- reviewed papers in
reference list. Some peer-reviewed papers in reference list but also a significant
body of grey literature. Relevant peer-reviewed papers in reference list but also
some grey literature or text books. Some included references less relevant. Mostly
peer-reviewed papers or specialized monographs in reference list. An occasional
reference may be less relevant. Almost exclusively peer- reviewed papers in
reference list or specialized monographs (not text books). All papers included
are relevant.
2.3. Use of methods and data
No description of methods and/or data. Research
is not reproducible due to insufficient information on data (collection and/or
treatment) and analysis methods. Some
aspects of the research regarding data-collection, data-treatment, models or
the analysis methods are described insufficiently so that that particular
aspect of the research is not reproducible. Description of the data (collection,
treatment) or models as well as the analysis methods used is lacking in a
number of places so that at most a more or less similar research could be performed.
Description of the data (collection, treatment) or models as well as the analysis
methods used is mostly complete, but exact reproduction of the research is not
possible due to lack of some details. Description
of the data (collection, treatment) or models as well as the analysis methods
is complete and clear so that exact reproduction of the research is possible.
2.4. Critical reflection on the research performed
(discussion)
No discussion and/or reflection on the
research. Discussion only touches trivial or very general points of criticism. Student
identifies only some possible weaknesses and/or points at weaknesses which are
in reality irrelevant or non-existent. Student indicates most weaknesses in the
research, but does not weigh their impact on the main results relative to each
other. Student indicates most weaknesses in the research and is able to weigh
their impact on the main results relative to each other. Student indicates all weaknesses
in the research and weighs them relative to each other. Furthermore, (better)
alternatives for the methods used are indicated. Student is not only able to identify
all possible weaknesses in the research, but is also able to indicate which
weaknesses affect the conclusions most. No
confrontation with existing literature. Confrontation with irrelevant existing
literature. Only trivial reflection vis-à- vis existing literature. Student
identifies only most obvious conflicts and correspondences with existing
literature. Student tries to describe the added value of his study but does not
relate this to existing research. Student shows minor and major conflicts and correspondences
with literature and can identify the added value of his research relative to
existing literature. Student critically confronts results to existing
literature and in case of conflicts is able to weigh own results relative to
existing literature. Student is able to identify the contribution of his work
to the development of scientific concepts.
2.5. Clarity of conclusions and recommendations
are optional)
No link between research questions, results
and conclusions. Conclusions are drawn,
but in many cases these are only partial answers to the research question. Conclusions
merely repeat results. Conclusions are linked to the research questions, but
not all questions are addressed. Some conclusions are not substantiated by
results or merely repeat results. Most conclusions well-linked to research
questions and substantiated by results. Conclusions mostly formulated clearly
but some vagueness in wording. Clear
link between research questions and conclusions. All conclusions substantiated by
results. Conclusions are formulated exact. Clear link between research questions and
conclusions. Conclusions substantiated by results. Conclusions are formulated
exact and concise. Conclusions are grouped/ordered in a logical way.
No recommendations given. Recommendations
are absent or trivial. Some recommendations are given, but the link of those to
the conclusions is not always clear. Recommendations are well- linked to the
conclusions. Recommendations are to-the- point, well-linked to the conclusions
and original. Recommendations are to-the- point, well-linked to the conclusions,
original and are extensive enough to serve as project description for a new thesis
project.
2.6. Writing skills
Thesis is badly structured. In many cases
information appears in wrong locations. Level of detail is inappropriate
throughout. Main structure incorrect in some places, and placement of material
in different chapters illogical in many places. Level of detail varies widely
(information missing, or irrelevant information given). Main structure is
correct, but lower level hierarchy of sections is not logical in places. Some
sections have overlapping functions leading to ambiguity in placement of
information. Level of detail varies widely (information missing, or irrelevant
information given). Main structure correct, but placement of material in different
chapters illogical in places. Level of detail inappropriate in a number of places
(irrelevant information given). Most sections have a clear and unique function.
Hierarchy of sections is mostly correct. Ordering of sections is mostly
logical. All information occurs at the correct place, with few exceptions. In
most places level of detail is appropriate. Well-structured: each section has a
clear and unique function. Hierarchy of sections is correct. Ordering of
sections is logical. All information occurs at the correct place. Level of
detail is appropriate throughout. Formulations in the text are often
incorrect/inexact inhibiting a correct interpretation of the text. Vagueness
and/or inexactness in wording occur regularly and affect the interpretation of
the text. The text is ambiguous in some places but this does not always inhibit
a correct interpretation of the text. Formulations in text are predominantly
clear and exact. Thesis could have been written more concisely. Formulations in
text are clear and exact, as well as concise. Textual quality of thesis (or manuscript
in the form of a journal paper) is such that it could be acceptable for a peer-reviewed
journal.
3.
Colloquium (5%) *
3.1. Graphical presentation
Presentation has no structure. Presentation
has unclear structure. Presentation is
structured, though the audience gets lost in some places. Presentation has a clear structure with only
few exceptions. Presentation has a clear
structure. Mostly a good separation between the main message and side-steps. Presentation
clearly structured, concise and to- the-point. Good separation between the main
message and side-steps. Unclear lay-out. Unbalanced use of text, graphs, tables
or graphics throughout. Too small font size, too many slides. Lay-out in many
places insufficient: too much text and too few graphics (or graphs, tables) or
vice versa. Quality of the layout of the slides is mixed. Inappropriate use of
text, tables, graphs and graphics in some places. Lay-out is mostly clear, with
unbalanced use of text, tables, graphs and graphics in few places only. Lay-out
is clear. Appropriate use of text, tables, graphs and graphics. Lay-out is
functional and clear. Clever use of graphs and graphics.
3.2. Verbal presentation and defence
Spoken in such a way that majority of
audience could not follow the presentation. Presentation is uninspired and/or
monotonous and/or student reads from slides: attention of audience not captured.
Quality of presentation is mixed: sometimes clear, sometimes hard to follow. Mostly clearly spoken. Perhaps monotonous in
some places. Clearly spoken. Relaxed and lively though concentrated
presentation. Clearly spoken. Level of
audience not taken into consideration at all. Level of audience hardly taken
into consideration. Presentation not at appropriate level of audience. Level of
presentation mostly targeted at audience. Level of presentation well- targeted
at audience. Student is able to adjust to some extent to signals from audience
that certain parts are not understood. Clear take-home message. Level
well-targeted at audience. Student is able to adjust to signals from audience
that certain parts are not understood. Bad timing (way too short or too long). Timing
not well kept (at most 30% deviation from planned time). Timing not well kept
(at most 20% deviation from planned time). Timing is OK (at most 10% deviation
from planned time). Timing is OK. Presentation finished well in time. Student
is not able to answer questions. Student is able to answer only the simplest
questions. Student answers at least half of the questions appropriately. Student
is able to answer nearly all questions in an appropriate way. Student is able
to answer all questions in an appropriate way, although not to-the- point in
some cases. Student is able to give appropriate, clear and to-the- point
answers to all questions.
4.
Examination (5%) *
4.1. Defence of the thesis
Student is not able to defend/discuss his
thesis. He does not master the contents. The student has difficulty to explain
the subject matter of the thesis. Student is able to defend his thesis. He
mostly masters the contents of what he wrote, but for a limited number of items
he is not able to explain what he did, or why. Student is able to defend his thesis.
He masters the contents of what he wrote, but not beyond that. Is not able to
place thesis in scientific or practical context. Student is able to defend his thesis,
including indications where the work could have been done better. Student is able
to place thesis in either scientific or practical context. Student is able to freely discuss the contents
of the thesis and to place the thesis in the context of current scientific
literature and practical contexts.
4.2. Knowledge of study domain
Student does not master the most basic
knowledge (even below the starting level for the thesis). The student does not understand all of the
subject matter discussed in the thesis. The student understands the subject
matter of the thesis on a textbook level. The student understands the subject
matter of the thesis, including the literature used in the thesis. Student is
well on top of subjects discussed in thesis: not only does he understand but he
is also aware of current discussions in the literature related to the thesis topic.
Student is well on top of subjects discussed in thesis: not only does he
understand but he is also aware of discussions in the literature beyond (but
related to) the topic of the thesis.
Grade 9: The thesis results include several
new ideas or findings; the thesis report
has minimal flaws and provides a good basis
for a scientific publication. The student shows high potential for being an
independent researcher. The oral presentation was at least good (8)
Grade 10: The thesis is truly outstanding
and a genuine advance in the scientific field
addressed by the student. The results are
suitable to submit for publication
practically without further modification.
The oral presentation was very
good to excellent.
If the marks had to be explained in one
word, the order would be: (6):acceptable; (7):
sufficient, (8):
good (9): very good and (10): excellent.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.