thesis evaluation criteria

Main navigation

• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff
• General requirements
• Preparation of a thesis
• Initial Thesis Submission
• Thesis examiners
• Evaluation of written thesis
• Thesis examination failures
• Doctoral oral defence
• Final Thesis Submission
• Thesis Writing and Support Resources
• Letters of Completion/PGWP

Evaluation of a Written Thesis

Examiners are asked to evaluate the thesis in myThesis, according to the criteria in the respective thesis examiner report for a Master's or Doctoral thesis. For an example of the criteria, please see the forms: see: Master's Examiner report form ; Doctoral Examiner report form (note these forms are now integrated in myThesis).

Examiners provide an overall judgment of 'passed' or ‘not passed’, in addition to a written report. For Master's students, this evaluation determines whether or not the thesis is ready for final submission, even if minor changes are recommended. For Doctoral candidates, this evaluation determines whether or not the candidate is ready to proceed to the oral defence.

If the thesis meets the general criteria for the degree sought, as well as those listed on the examiner's report form it should be evaluated as 'Passed', even if some changes are recommended.

If the overall judgement is 'Passed', examiners are asked to provide:

• A report that includes any recommendations for minor revisions to the thesis (i.e., stylistic or editorial changes that can be completed in three weeks or less).
• For doctoral theses, External Examiners who will not be at the oral defence must also provide a list of questions to be asked of the candidate at the oral defence.

An evaluation of 'Not Passed' should be given if:

• the need for a new study, experimentation, or significant additional research or reformulation.
• the need to address major problems with the presentation of the work. Stylistic or editorial changes are not normally considered to be major revisions, but if the quality of the presentation is so poor that extensive rewriting is required, the thesis should not be passed.
• At least one of the Criteria for the Evaluation of the Thesis (see Master's Examiner report form ; Doctoral Examiner report form ) is judged as unsatisfactory.

Examiners are asked to identify required changes clearly in their reports. The supervisor or another designated person will ensure that the student corrects the thesis and that it appropriately reflects the examiners' suggestions for revisions prior to re-submission of the thesis.

The candidate will normally revise and re-submit the thesis for re-assessment, usually by the same examiner. If/when review of the revised thesis is required, the Thesis Unit will contact the initial examiner to determine their availability. In rare cases, a revised thesis may be sent to a new examiner if the first examiner is not available to re-examine the thesis. For more, please see Thesis examination failures.

If the revised thesis is again ‘not passed’, the student will be withdrawn from the University unless the decision is reversed through an appeal to the Hearing Committee (Bias, Error, or Misrepresentation ).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License . Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, McGill University .

Department and University Information

Graduate and postdoctoral studies.

Instructions for the Thesis

• Thesis Workshop
• Thesis Guidance and Allocation of Responsibilities
• Research Ethics and Data Protection
• Sources of Thesis Guidelines
• Ideation, Selection, and Approval of Your Topic
• Project Plan or Research Plan
• Planning and Initiation of the Thesis
• Formats of a Thesis
• Writing the Theoretical Framework
• Selection and Description of the Method
• Guidelines for Reporting
• Citations and Creating a Reference List
• Language Guidance for the Thesis
• Plagiarism Check
• Guidelines for Theseus
• Maturity Test
• Instructions for the Final Stage of Master’s Thesis
• Evaluation of the Thesis
• Defining the search topic
• Evaluating the search results
• Choosing and using sources
• Finna search services
• Open access (OA)
• Google Scholar
• Evaluating online sources
• Good to know about search engines
• Databases and articles
• Other resources

Bachelor's thesis

Your thesis will be evaluated on a numerical scale of 1-5. The evaluation is based on several criteria, such as the choice of topic and novelty of the work, its usefulness and objectives, theoretical foundation, implementation, reporting and analysis of results, conclusions, reflections, process, and written presentation. These criteria are considered during the evaluation to assess the nature of the thesis. Your grade is determined by the overall assessment of these aspects, reflecting the quality of the entire process.

Your thesis can be evaluated once your supervising teacher grants permission for publication. The evaluation is conducted by the supervising teacher, who also considers the views of the possible commissioning party regarding the quality and practical applicability of the work. If the supervising teacher proposes a grade of 1 (satisfactory) or 5 (excellent), a second examiner is required.

In an excellent (5) thesis, the topic contributes to the development of the professional field and is relevant in that context. The theory and practical implementation of the research or project form a clear, logical, and high-quality entity. An excellent thesis also addresses the reliability of the work and its results (reliability requirement) as well as the suitability of the methods used (validity requirement). In an excellent research-oriented thesis, qualitative and/or quantitative research methods are applied skilfully, considering qualitative and/or statistical assessment. In an excellent project or project-type work, commendable expertise is demonstrated, and the methods and results used are evaluated. The references are of high academic quality, demonstrating the student's extensive understanding of the topic.

Master’s thesis:

An approved Master's thesis in a UAS (University of Applied Sciences) is evaluated on a scale of 1-5. The evaluation considers the topic selection, management of the research or project process, theoretical background, implementation, results, and reporting. The assessment criteria for a Master's degree in a UAS are based on the criteria of EQF level 7. In an excellent (5) thesis, the topic contributes to the development of the professional field and is relevant to it. The theory and practical implementation of the research or project form a clear, logical, and high-quality entity. An excellent thesis also addresses the reliability of the work and its results (reliability requirement) and the suitability of the methods used (validity requirement). If the supervising teacher proposes a grade of 5 (excellent) or 1 (weak) for the thesis, a second examiner is required.

You can find the thesis assessment criteria used at Vaasa University of Applied Sciences here:

• Thesis Assessment Criteria at VAMK, University of Applied Sciences
• Thesis Assesment Criteria for Master’s Thesis 
• << Previous: Instructions for the Final Stage of Master’s Thesis
• Next: Stages of Information Searching >>
• Last Updated: May 17, 2024 10:30 AM
• URL: https://vamk.libguides.com/instructions_thesis

Transdisciplinary Life Science Course Division of Life Science, Graduate School of Life Science, Hokkaido University

• Hokkaido University
• Graduate School of Life Science
• Contact / Access
• Transdisciplinary Life Science Course, Division of Life Science, Graduate School of Life Science, Hokkaido University
• Course Outline
• Admission Information
• Careers After Graduation
• Laboratories & Staffs

Evaluation Criteria for Master’s Thesis and Doctoral Dissertation

Evaluation criteria for master’s dissertations, division of life science, division of soft matter, graduate school of life science, hokkaido university, 1. fundamental requirements.

• A master’s dissertation must have sufficient academic value and a high level of originality, demonstrating that a master’s candidate has the academic skills, abilities, and qualities as required in the diploma policy of the Graduate School Division, Hokkaido University, and the diploma policy of the Graduate School of Life Science.
• In principle, a master’s dissertation must be written by a single author. It should not incorporate material from others’ dissertations or infringe on originalities and/or ideas presented in research publications.
• A master’s dissertation must not infringe on others’ rights under the law, such as author’s rights, portrait rights, etc.
• A master’s dissertation must be developed based on a comprehensive research conducted in accordance with the “Code of Conduct for Scientists at Hokkaido University.”

2. Structure of Dissertation

A master’s dissertation must fulfill the following requirements:

• Provide an adequate title.
• State research background and a research aim clearly.
• Describe the research methodology utilized in accordance with the aim.
• Show results with graphic charts.
• Develop a thorough discussion based on research results.
• Derive a result corresponding to an aim.
• Cite references properly.
• Structure chapters of the dissertation according to the items included in this section.

3. Contents

The following criteria shall be used to evaluate a master’s dissertation. In this regard, the evaluating committee is entrusted with valuing and adding items as needed.

• A dissertation must have sufficient academic value based on international standards in major fields.
• The content must be aligned with a selected theme, and the research methodology.
• The research must be described background clearly and cited references properly.
• Data must be collected and handled in accordance with an elective theme and corresponding research methodology.
• The research process must be described in detail.
• Data analyses associated with individual graphic charts must be described and interpreted precisely.
• A dissertation must have a consecutive structure.
• Contents must be presented logically and conclusions must be complete.

Evaluation Criteria for Doctoral Dissertations, Division of Life Science, Division of Soft Matter, Graduate School of Life Science, Hokkaido University

• A doctoral dissertation must have sufficient academic value and a high level of originality, demonstrating that a doctoral candidate has the academic skills, abilities, and qualities as required in the diploma policy of the Graduate School Division, Hokkaido University, and the diploma policy of the Graduate School of Life Science.
• In principle, a doctoral dissertation must be written by a single author. It should not incorporate material from others’ dissertations or infringe on originalities and/or ideas presented in research publications.
• A doctoral dissertation must not infringe on others’ rights under the law, such as author’s rights, portrait rights, etc.
• A doctoral dissertation must be developed based on a comprehensive research conducted in accordance with the “Code of Conduct for Scientists at Hokkaido University.”

A doctoral dissertation must fulfill the following requirements:

The following criteria shall be used to evaluate a doctoral dissertation. In this regard, the evaluating committee is entrusted with valuing and adding items as needed.

• A dissertation must have sufficient academic value based on international standards in major fields. Academic value indicates discovery of unknown things, new analytical methods, theoretical structures and developments, and new academic interpretations or the creation of concepts, which contribute to academic research in current fields.
• The content must be aligned with a selected theme, and the research methodology must be based on the theme in accordance with advanced research and a high level of originality.
• A dissertation must have a consecutive structure; content must be presented logically; and conclusions must be complete.

Search this site

Clark honors college menu, clark honors college, chc thesis evaluation criteria.

For each member of the Thesis Defense Committee

After a thesis defense, Clark Honors College thesis committee members evaluate the quality of the overall thesis project and make a decision. The decisions are:

The student has produced work that is satisfactory in the five evaluation areas. Students may make minor revisions prior to final submission of the thesis.

Decision Withheld

In cases where revisions are required for the thesis to be considered completed, the committee may opt to withhold their decision. A timeline should be set for completion of revisions that provides time for them to be reviewed and the thesis submitted by the Thursday of Week 10 at noon.

Not Completed

This decision is for work that is unacceptable in most or all of the five areas. Very few Clark Honors College theses are given a "Not Completed" evaluation, not only because of the general high quality of the work turned in by Clark Honors College students, but also because thesis committee members discourage students from standing for oral examination if they are not prepared and the committee members have not read and approved of the thesis, at least conditionally.

The evaluation must reflect the student's performance in the following five areas:

Initiative and Self-Direction:

• independence and initiative to conceive and see a project through to completion
• evidence of strong problem-solving skills
• productive, proactive, and effective communication with their committee

Relevance and/or Originality of Project:

• ability to conceive of a project topic that is highly relevant within the field and for society more broadly
• poses a problem that demonstrates critical analysis and interpretation or creative engagement
• asks relevant research questions or situates project in a way that builds on four years of study within a specific major and within a particular area

Project Quality and Mastery:

• demonstrates use of relevant methods, skills, and practices to thoroughly and effectively investigate a research topic or complete a project according to the standards of the field
• shows mastery of the relevant content, data, secondary literature, and research material; logically and clearly articulates the project goals, research questions, arguments, and/or outcomes
• shows mastery of information related to the project topic, field, and discipline
• demonstrates concrete evidence of critical analysis and interpretation

Writing Quality:

• ability to conceive, frame, and convey arguments eloquently and with compelling evidence
• demonstrates one's own intellectual contributions and conclusions that are accurate and compelling to their audience
• ability to organize project documentation with sophisticated ideas in a clear, well-organized, structured, accessible way
• the writing adheres to discipline-specific styles while also speaking across fields and audiences
• clear and concise writing that is free of errors and uses correct citation style for the field

Oral Defense Quality:

• delivered a well-organized, engaging, and polished presentation with information that is accurate and compelling
• showed ability to communicate orally one's project questions, arguments, results, and broader conclusions
• conveyed complex and difficult concepts clearly to both specialists and a broad audience
• demonstrated capacity to think in the moment and respond effectively to questions from the thesis committee and audience

UCL Doctorate In Clinical Psychology

Examiners' criteria for evaluating the thesis

General criteria.

The research thesis is expected to be an original piece of empirical work of relevance to clinical psychology, demonstrating the candidate’s ability to apply scientific principles and undertake rigorous investigation. It should be of publishable quality, making a distinct contribution to the knowledge of the subject and affording evidence of originality.

The work done for the thesis must not have been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of any other degree, and it must be the candidate’s own work. If the candidate is working in a team or analysing previously collected data the candidate’s personal contribution must be clearly defined. The criterion of acceptability is that the candidate is making a substantial independent contribution to the study.

The course supports a pluralistic approach to research. The candidate is free to choose from a range of approaches and paradigms as long as the research methods are appropriate to the research questions or hypotheses being investigated.

It should be borne in mind that, due to the multiple demands of clinical training, trainees are allotted relatively little time in which to do their project. We therefore do not hope for large or flawless studies, but we do expect that the research will be executed in a rigorous and professional manner.

These notes should be read in conjunction with the trainees’ guidelines on the major research project and on writing and presenting the thesis .

Theses are normally sent out to examiners in July for the September vivas. Before the viva, the internal and the external examiner each independently complete a report on the thesis.

The purpose of the viva is for the examiners to understand the candidate’s thinking about the material in the thesis (and also to establish their claim to independence of work). The candidate should be given the opportunity to explain any deficiencies or clarify any issues raised by the examiners.

Following the viva, the examiners compile a brief joint report. This includes an agreed evaluation of the written thesis and an assessment of the candidate’s performance in the viva. The result of the examination must be assigned to one of the five categories below. This is a recommendation subject to ratification by the Board of Examiners.

Outcomes of the viva

In arriving at an overall evaluation, examiners will bear in mind that strengths in some areas of the thesis may compensate for weaknesses in others. The more important or innovative the topic or method, the more forgivable are shortcomings: it is relatively easy to do methodologically sound but trivial research; harder to do innovative research that is scientifically or professionally significant.

The following categories are not “marks” in the sense of corresponding to A, B, C, etc.; rather they are to be thought of as specifying what is needed to bring the thesis up to an acceptable standard. It is possible, for example, that a generally excellent thesis may have some flaws requiring corrections, or that a competent but rather uninspiring thesis be awarded a pass.

The indicative times given next to each correction type (i.e. one month, three months, one year) represent the maximum time the candidate is given to make the corrections. However, it is possible that candidates may be able to submit their corrections earlier, and indeed the requirements for HPC registration put them under some pressure to get their thesis finally approved. Ultimately, the examiners will judge how well the corrections have been completed, rather than how long they have taken to be completed.

A well-conducted and well-presented study. Any small deficiencies in conceptualisation, measurement, design or execution are counterbalanced by positive qualities and a thorough discussion of methodological limitations. Minimal typographical or stylistic errors.

Pass conditional on minor corrections (one month)

A thesis which meets the criteria for a pass, but has some weaknesses that are fairly readily correctable. Corrections might include adding some further material; rewriting several pages; some re-analysis or re-presentation of the data; or correction of a large number of typographical or stylistic errors. (Theses with minimal presentational errors can, at the Board of Examiners’ discretion, be awarded a Pass.)

Referred for stipulated revisions (three months)

A thesis which has several substantial flaws in the analysis or write-up. Stipulated revisions might include the addition of substantial new material; a significant amount of rewriting, often in several parts of the thesis; or an extensive re-analysis of the data, which will usually necessitate revising the discussion of the findings.

Referred for major revisions (one year)

A badly thought-out or extremely poorly presented piece or work with serious flaws that are not convincingly explained in the viva. The thesis requires a very substantial re-conceptualisation, rewriting, or re-analysis to be brought up to passing standard. Revisions that require the collection of a significant amount of new data also fall under this category. A further oral examination, following resubmission, may be held at the examiners’ discretion.

A Fail should be given when the work undertaken by the candidate is irredeemable, i.e., the thesis has major flaws in conceptualisation, execution or presentation, which are not adequately accounted for in the viva. A Fail should also be given if the candidate’s viva performance reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the rationale underpinning the work. In other words, either the thesis or the candidate’s viva performance indicates an absence of expected competencies and suggests that the candidate is not going to be able to undertake independent work as a clinical psychologist in the NHS. No resubmission is permitted.

Resubmission of the corrected thesis

The deadlines for the one-month, three-month and one-year resubmissions will be decided at the exam board. The revised thesis usually will be seen only by the internal examiner, unless the external examiner requests to see it.

If the required corrections have been made to the thesis, it is passed. If it falls short of meeting the required corrections, it will be referred to the chair of the exam board. (The one exception to this is when only a small number of very minor corrections still need to be made; the internal examiner can, at their discretion, contact the candidate directly, requesting that these changes be made.) If the candidate is unable or unwilling to make the corrections required, the thesis may be failed. The course regulations state that all course requirements must be completed within four years.

HPC registration

It is a pre-condition of HPC registration that candidates have completed all elements of the course, which includes all of their thesis corrections. Once the final hard-bound copy of the thesis, plus the electronic copy, have been submitted, the department will inform HPC so that registration can go ahead. The course makes every effort to streamline this process, so that potential employment is not affected.

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Completing Your Evaluation Dissertation, Thesis, or Culminating Project

• Tamara M. Walser - University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA
• Michael S. Trevisan - Washington State University, USA
• Description

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

"The book provides a more practical approach/guide for conducting program evaluation."

" A superbly written and important treatise that fills a wide gap."

“This is an excellent guide for students undertaking an evaluation capstone project.”

I feel like I have co-teaching partners in the classroom using this text. This is a diverse resource to be used in a classroom setting or for individualized academic research advising for culminating projects.”

“ This text is a ‘must-have’ for the student who is conducting an evaluation dissertation study. It contains the essentials for developing a research rationale using the Program Evaluation Standards. It also combines the practical points of conducting a study with the academic requirements of completing a dissertation.”

For instructors

Select a purchasing option.

Shipped Options:

BUNDLE: Thomas: Evaluation in Today’s World (paperback) + Walser: Completing Your Evaluation Dissertation, Thesis, or Culminating Project (paperback)

This title is also available on SAGE Research Methods , the ultimate digital methods library. If your library doesn’t have access, ask your librarian to start a trial .

Office of Undergraduate Education

University Honors Program

• Honors Requirements
• Major and Thesis Requirements
• Courses & Experiences
• Nova Series
• Honors Courses
• NEXUS Experiences
• Non-Course Experiences
• Faculty-Directed Research and Creative Projects
• Community Engagement and Volunteering
• Internships
• Learning Abroad
• Honors Thesis Guide
• Sample Timeline
• Important Dates and Deadlines
• Requirements and Evaluation Criteria
• Supervision and Approval
• Credit and Honors Experiences
• Style and Formatting
• Submit Your Thesis
• Submit to the Digital Conservancy
• Honors Advising
• Honors Reporting Center
• Get Involved
• University Honors Student Association
• UHSA Executive Board
• Honors Multicultural Network
• Honors Mentor Program
• Honors Community & Housing
• Freshman Invitation
• Post-Freshman Admission
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Faculty Fellows
• Faculty Resources
• Honors Faculty Representatives
• Internal Honors Scholarships
• Office for National and International Scholarships
• Letters of Recommendation
• Personal Statements
• Scholarship Information
• Honors Lecture Series
• Honors Recognition Ceremony
• Make a Donation
• UHP Land Acknowledgment
• UHP Policies

Thesis Requirements and Evaluation Criteria

Whatever form it takes, the purposes of the Honors Thesis are many—all of which develop skills that will serve our students well after graduation. The Honors Thesis must go above and beyond any project done for a course other than thesis or directed-studies/independent-studies courses. It may expand upon a term paper written for a course, but may not simply be a repurposed project completed for another course or requirement. The Honors Thesis must demonstrate that the student:

• Has developed excellent writing skills;
• Understands the project's relevance to the field of study and/or to society;
• Is able to apply theories and methods of research, analysis, or interpretation, or artistic techniques as appropriate to the field;
• Has cited appropriate sources;
• Is able to critically examine the work of other scholars or artists and relate that work to the thesis;
• Has contributed original research, ideas, knowledge, interpretations, or creative expression at a level appropriate for undergraduate study, such that the thesis goes beyond describing existing work;
• Has the ability to digest pre-existing work, present and summarize it succinctly, and, hence, articulate the context in which the student’s new work is situated;
• Has the ability to propose an idea in brief (i.e., the thesis proposal), and then bring that idea to fruition within a given timeline;
• Has the ability to present writing or recordings whose quality and polish are at a publishable or public-presentation level (even if the data, research, or ideas are still at a preliminary level);
• Has the ability to present ideas clearly and compellingly to an audience of non-specialists;
• Has the ability to go beyond programmatic or major capstone requirements for non-UHP students.

Moreover, a summa cum laude Honors Thesis must also demonstrate:

• The ability to do original (i.e., not an extended literature review or synopsis of previous work), highest-quality work;
• The ability to meet department- or program-specific stipulations for summa-level thesis work, as defined on our Major and Thesis Requirements page.

All Honors Theses require approval by a committee of three members—the main thesis advisor and two other readers. One of the three members (not necessarily the main thesis advisor) must be a tenured or tenure-track faculty member in the student's home department. Other members may be tenured, tenure-track, contract, affiliate, adjunct, emeritus, and/or P&A faculty members at the University of Minnesota. Faculty members from other institutions, graduate students, and community members with expertise relevant to the student's topic may serve on the committee if approved by the departmental  Honors Faculty Representative (listed by major) and by UHP. The process for approval is for the Honors Faculty Representative to email UHP's director to explain in a couple of sentences the potential committee member's qualifications, and to then receive approval from the director.

• Summer Research Opportunities
• Global Seminars and LAC Seminars
• Honors Research in London - Summer 2024

Humak's Thesis Manual, Bachelor's degree

• What is a Humak thesis?
• Introductory note
• Topic selection and commissioning of final projects
• Topic proposal and cooperation agreement of the final project/thesis
• Thesis plan
• Thesis seminar and pre-evaluation
• Thesis ethical instructions
• Forms needed for thesis work
• Knowledge base
• Utilizing the methods of development work
• Writing a thesis
• Overcoming writing problems
• Structure of the thesis
• Thesis and AI

Evaluation criteria

• Maturity test
• Rectification of evaluation
• Thesis layout

A thesis review focuses on three main points. Underneath the main points are sub-points, which are used to evaluate the main points. Every main point is evaluated with a partial grade, that adds to the final grade. A grade for the thesis is based on the combined average of partial grades.

I. Significance of the final project to the professional sector (emphasis 50%) 

In the first evaluation section, the thesis is examined from the point of view of the commissioner of the work and the professional sector as a whole. Often the choice of topic determines whether the project can develop operations and therefore, service the entire professional field. Identifying development needs in the professional field means that the author must have a curious approach to familiarisation with the professional literature of the field and in networking with the sector. The applicability of the work may be immediate or subsequent: the most important thing is the careful assessment of the usability of the work. Critical evaluation means the ability of the author to reliably assess the significance of the work to the commissioner and to a broader readership. In the best case, the thesis will serve both the concrete objectives as well as increase the knowledge and competence base of the professional sector. Sometimes the product of a thesis may fail, at least in part, but a careful analysis of the causes of the failure may produce valuable information and thereby lead to a successful thesis and final project. The evaluated points are:

1. Importance and topical nature of the theme 1–5 

2. identifying the development needs of the subject field 1–5 , 3. applicability value of the project for the commissioner 1–5 , 4. significance of the work for the professional sector 1–5 , 5. critical evaluation of the project 1–5 .

Significance of the work to the profession is considered excellent (5) if the choice of the topic is bold, original and future-oriented. Furthermore, a thesis evaluated as excellent offers a good application value for the commissioner and is particularly interesting from the perspective of the entire professional industry. The significance of the work to the profession is considered good (3) if the work is important to the commissioner but the value of the work for the profession remains unclear. The significance of the work to the professional sector is considered satisfactory (1), if the development project is a routine task the usability of which cannot be truly assessed or demonstrated. 

II. Generation of knowledge and competence (emphasis 30%) 

This section assesses the ability of the thesis author to perform a demanding task independently and in an original manner. Versatile use of references and other sources of information means that the information is modified instead of simply listed. Good methodological competence is the ability to apply research methods – not just to quote methodology guides. In final projects that emphasise functionality, the author’s ability to use, for example, the final project journals and in general, the ability to produce reliable information through critical evaluation of operations, is evaluated. Compliance with the principles of ethical research is a part of methodological competence. Meaningful development work often requires courage, innovation and determination. Conventionality hardly ever produces surprising information. Establishing the development work on bold operational experiments is the most obvious way to be original, but even more research-based approaches can be original, especially at the stage in which the results of the work are being implemented in the commissioner’s operations. The evaluated points are:

6 . Versatile utilisation of information sources 1–5 

7. originality and courage of the development work 1–5 , 8. methodological competence 1–5 .

The generation of knowledge and competence is considered excellent (5), if the author has managed to set the different sources of information in dialogue with each other and personal perspective has been established and applied in practical tasks. The production of knowledge and competence is considered good (3) if the sources are relevant and they have been used in a diverse way, but the information is presented in a list-like form rather than modified and applied. In a satisfactory (1) thesis, the written sources remain unconnected with the content, the text is fragmentary, and the objectives of the final project are not clearly defined. 

III. Appearance and readability of the thesis (emphasis 20%) 

This section evaluates the internal and external functionality of the thesis. It is not only a matter of form, but also usability value of the thesis in working life. Functionality also beans accessibility: all theses must follow the guidelines of the EU’s accessibility directive (2016/2012) about text accessibility. If the accessibility requirements are completely ignored, a work cannot be submitted for evaluation. Instruction for an accessible thesis can be found through this link . The evaluated points are:

9. Clarity of the layout and structure and careful formatting of the thesis 1–5 

10. ability to write good and clear expert text 1–5 .

A thesis considered excellent (5) is linguistically impeccable, has convincing content, and is structurally reader-friendly. In a good (3) thesis, some flaws in layout and structure are allowed, if the text itself is fluent and written in an expertly manner. In addition, any tables, figures and illustrations are appropriate and neatly formatted. The source references and bibliography have been made with care. A satisfactory (1) thesis work is not very attractive on the outside, the presentation is rigid, and the author clearly has difficulties in writing good expert text. 

• << Previous: Evaluation and submitting a thesis for evaluation
• Next: Maturity test >>
• Last Updated: Mar 19, 2024 3:07 PM
• URL: https://humak.libguides.com/c.php?g=686371

Evaluation criteria for the final thesis project

Your thesis is evaluated and graded based on set criteria. These criteria have been developed by the assessors and teaching staff at Arcada, taking into account the European Qualifications Framework for education.

The evaluation of the thesis is done by the assessor along with the supervisor. The assessor writes a statement that is a complete examination of the thesis. The statement is also signed by the supervisor. The supervisor has the right to request a thesis language revision.

With regard to practice in the subject and nature of the work, the degree thesis and master thesis are evaluated as excellent (5), very good (4), good (3), satisfactory (2) or sufficient (1). The grade is justified in the statement and determined by an overall assessment on the basis of the work, the maturity exam and presentation.

Theses at Arcada UAS need to correspond to the requirements set by the European Qualifications Framework External link (EQF); level 6 for bachelor's level and level 7 for master's. At the end of this website you can find links to PDF files with evaluation criteria for both bachelor's and master's theses as tables.

Degree thesis

The evaluation level of the bachelor's degree thesis is determined by the EQF level 6, which establishes requirements on

• advanced knowledge involving a critical understanding of theories and principles
• advanced skills, demonstrating expertise and innovation
• ability to solve complex problems in a specialised professional field

Themes evaluated in bachelor's degree theses

According to Arcada's evaluation criteria for bachelor's degree theses, the following themes are evaluated, and every theme's subheading is graded on a scale of 0-5:

• You can define the research problem and its motivation
• You can formulate the aims that form the basis of your thesis
• You can identify the foundation for development or research and describe previous research and literature
• You can independently choose and formulate the appropriate method and process
• You can perform the process independently and proficiently
• You present your results in a structured manner
• You contribute to solving complex problems within your profession and you can have a reflective discussion about your results and your thesis
• You are able to communicate results and reflect on ethical issues
• You are able to address ethical issues in academic research

Master thesis

The evaluation level of the degree thesis is determined by the EQF level 7, which establishes requirements on

• highly specialised knowledge as the basis for original thinking and research
• awareness of knowledge issues in a field and at the point of contact between the different disciplines
• specialised problem-solving skills in research and innovation to develop new knowledge, new procedures or integrate knowledge from different fields

Themes evaluated in master's degree theses

According to Arcada's evaluation criteria for master's degree theses, the following themes are evaluated, and every theme's subheading is graded on a scale of 0-5:

• You can delimit and define the research problem and justify it
• You can formulate aims and objectives that create the basis for your thesis
• You can identify the basis for the development or research and describe previous research and literature
• You can independently justify an appropriate method and process.
• You can provide a sufficient sample of data
• You can carry out the process independently and skillfully.
• You present your results in a structured way
• You contribute to solving complex problems in your field and you engage in a reflective discussion of your results
• You are able to communicate and reflect on your results
• You can consider ethical issues in relation to your research

The following factors are evaluated:

• Benefit for the target group and profession or occupation
• Delimitation, object
• Positioning and connection to earlier research
• Understanding of the chosen theme (concept, theories)
• Choice of method and application of method
• Presentation and purposefulness of the work process
• Information retrieval and processing
• Presentation of results
• Evaluation and critical review of results
• Originality or innovativeness
• Independency
• Design, logical structure and necessary parts
• Readability and flow
• Source reference apparatus
• Level of transparency and objectivity
• Quality of language
• Research ethical formalities
• Ethical examination
• Sustainable development

Utlåtande över examensarbete

evaluation-template-2016

Bachelor thesis evaluation framework

Master thesis evaluation framework

• General View
• News&Events

Japanese | Chinese

Thesis Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation criteria for master's thesis examination.

The Master's program aims to cultivate a deep understanding of the general humanities from a broad perspective, develop basic research capabilities in a specialized field, and enhance the ability to take up occupations that require a high level of expertise.

The Master's thesis shows that the author has expertise in their field of research/subject, and has the wide range of cultural knowledge on general humanities necessary for advanced professionals; it is evaluated based on the following criteria.

• Writing is easy-to-understand and clear
• The composition of the paper as a whole is well assembled
• The point of the argument is clear
• Appropriate use of research methods and materials
• Well incorporated research accumulation from the field of study
• As a researcher, observes the norms established in academic research and research ethics

Evaluation Criteria for PhD Thesis Examination

In the examination review of a PhD Thesis, the paper is evaluated based on the following criteria.

• The integrity of the paper
• Ability and potential as a researcher

With regards to A:

• Clear expression of awareness of the issue
• Established rationality and persuasiveness of theme
• Subjectivity in establishment/operation of methodology
• Understanding of previous research and positioning of thesis within the body of research
• Unique academic contribution in the research field/area
• Provision and composition of logic that effectively realizes the above-mentioned conditions in compliance with academic norms and established writing norms

Based on whether/to what extent the research reflects the primary review points.

With regards to B:

• Ability to continue independent research as an autonomous researcher, and to make unique contributions to the future of research in the field /area

Based on whether or not the candidate reflects the primary review points.

The above examination criteria and examination points shall be applied flexibly, with consideration for the field of research and various other conditions particular to the subject of research.

Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine

• Prospective students
• Current students

• Organization
• Three policies and assessment policies (School)
• Academic achievement rubric
• Diploma policy
• Curriculum policy
• Admission policy
• Assessment policy
• Evaluation criteria for thesis and dissertation
• Former graduate school education policy (until 2017)
• About human body and human sample research
• About animal experiment
• Site policy
• Harassment prevention
• Disaster preparedness / Disaster emergency response
• School of Agriculture and Animal Science
• Laboratory of Veterinary Life Science
• Laboratory of Animal Production Science
• Laboratory of Ecology and Environmental Science
• Laboratory of Food Science
• Laboratory of Agricultural Economics
• Laboratory of Engineering for Agriculture
• Laboratory of Plant Production Science
• Faculty of Doctoral Program of Animal Science and Agriculture
• Faculty of Doctoral Program of Veterinary Science
• School entrance exam
• Graduate entrance exam
• Research student
• Academic calendar
• Graduate school grade / semester
• Advising teacher and research title / plan notification
• Course registration
• Researcher ethics education
• Promotion / Completion
• Study period extending system
• Early completion system
• Masters Program
• Doctoral Programs (Animal Science and Agriculture / Veterinary Science)
• Search through syllabi
• Information on teaching desks
• Tuition exemption / various insurance
• Scholarship
• Student planning public offering business
• Traffic regulation in university premises
• Course student / Research student
• Academic exchange agreement
• From Japan to overseas
• Scholarship supported by Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)
• Overseas volunteers
• For current International students
• Crisis management at overseas travel
• Find / Search
• Health Care Administration Center Usage guide
• Health Care Administration Center Certificate of Medical Examination
• Health Care Administration Center Inquiries
• Student Counseling Room
• University Educational Affairs Center
• English Resource Center (ERC)
• Office for International Accreditation of Veterinary Education
• Department of Veterinary Medicine
• Department of Life and Food Sciences
• Department of Agro-environmental Science
• Department of Human Sciences
• Focus Introduction of Researchers
• Research Center for Global Agromedicine (GAMRC)
• National Research Center for Protozoan Diseases
• Field Center of Animal and Agriculture

Master’s thesis

The thesis should be written in Japanese or English about the research that the master degree candidate conducted independently. The thesis will be evaluated based on the diploma policies of the graduate school, and the program and laboratory that the candidate belongs to and the following criteria.

• A title clearly identifies the topic of the thesis.
• A introduction (background, objective), methods, results, discussion, figures, tables and references are presented in a standard thesis style.
• Relevant research is critically investigated and analyzed in the background and objective.
• Methods are described in detail, so it is clear why they were selected for the research.
• Data are shown accurately and clearly in the text using figures and tables.
• Results are interpreted critically and discussed in reaching logical conclusions.
• The thesis includes original and creative findings.
• References are listed completely and accurately and with careful attention paid to research ethics, including plagiarism and proper citation.

Doctoral dissertation

The dissertation should be written in Japanese or English about the research conducted independently by the doctoral candidate. The dissertation will be evaluated based on the diploma policies of the graduate school, and the program and laboratory that the candidate belongs to and the following criteria.

• A title clearly identifies the topic of the dissertation.
• A introduction (background, objective), chapters including published papers on which the dissertation is based, general discussion, conclusion and references in a standard dissertation style.
• Previous studies are critically investigated and analyzed to provide the background and objective of the dissertation.
• The dissertation includes creative and original findings.
• The research is academically valuable and has the potential for future advances that will contribute significantly to society.