Master’s thesis assessment criteria
Assessment Criteria for Master's Thesis
Excellent (5)
The research and development need has been described and presented with very clear arguments, from many angles, from a social viewpoint and/or making use of research data available in the field.
The research and development need's significance has been expressed with great expertise from the viewpoint of the customer, partner organisation, professional field and/or regional development.
Good (3-4)
The research and development need has been described with clear and good argumentation.
Its significance has been expressed from the viewpoint of the customer, partner organisation's operation, professional field and/or regional development
Satisfactory (1-2)
The research and development need has been described and its significance has been expressed from the partner organisation's viewpoint.
Fail
The research and development need has not been described nor its significance indicated
Excellent (5)
The goals have been specified and argued very clearly.
Good (3-4)
The goals have been clearly specified and the argumentation is appropriate.
Satisfactory (1-2)
The goals have been specified, but the argumentation is poor.
Fail
The goals have not been specified
Excellent (5)
The knowledge base is comprehensive and versatile also in terms of international literature.
The knowledge base guides development of the field excellently.
The student applies source criticism systematically.
Good (3-4)
The knowledge base is relevant, versatile and international.
The knowledge base guides developing the field naturally.
The student has a good command of source criticism.
Satisfactory (1-2)
The knowledge base is only partly connected to developing the field and conclusions.
Key sources are missing.
The student is familiar with basic source criticism.
Fail
The work lacks a knowledge base, relying merely on personal experience, conventions or textbooks, or otherwise the information presented does not have a connection to developing operations.
The student is not familiar with basic source criticism.
Excellent (5)
The reasoning for the selection of research and development methods is sound.
The selected research and development methods are applied like an expert.
Good (3-4)
The research and development methods are well chosen and applied carefully, appropriately and in a problem-oriented way.
Satisfactory (1-2)
Research and development methods are described insufficiently and utilised superficially.
Fail
Research or development framework is missing.
It is not clear which research and development method was applied, or their description is random and illogical.
Excellent (5)
A variety of and comprehensive results have been obtained from the material considering the targets and/or the research question.
Discerning conclusions have been drawn from the results.
Applicability of the results is discussed in a wider professional and working life context.
Good (3-4)
Relevant results have been obtained, leading to justified conclusions that have been clearly expressed.
Applicability of the results is discussed, also in a wider context.
Satisfactory (1-2)
Some relevant results have been obtained from the material.
Conclusions have been drawn from the results and they have been presented in overall terms.
Applicability of the results is discussed, but at a general level.
Fail
No relevant and justifiable results have been obtained from the material. Areas of application cannot be found.
Excellent (5)
Management of the work process and development work is constructive and responsible both in terms of planning and implementation.
Good (3-4)
The work process is implemented in a planned fashion and appropriately in terms of the research approach.
The choices made are justified.
Development work takes place under self-management.
Satisfactory (1-2)
Work does not proceed according to the targets and the chosen research approach.
The choices made are justified superficially.
The amount of self-managed development work is inadequate
Fail
The work process is fragmentary and no grounds are presented for the choices made. Work does not proceed according to plan, logically or in a responsible manner.
Excellent (5)
Reliability and ethicality issues are reflected on expertly and purposefully.
Good (3-4)
Reliability and ethicality issues are dealt with appropriately.
Satisfactory (1-2)
Reliability and ethicality issues are dealt with to some extent.
Fail
There are problems in the reliability and ethicality of the work.
Excellent (5)
The thesis creates a clear communicative package.
The language is neat and fluent.
The appearance is of high quality throughout.
Good (3-4)
The language is almost flawless, expert-level text that is well-structured.
The appearance is very good and the text is fluent.
Satisfactory (1-2)
The thesis structure and linguistic expression need some improvement.
The linguistic expression is rather clumsy.
Fail
The thesis does not fulfil the discipline's minimum requirements set for expert communication in terms of the communicative aspects and the language and/or appearance.