Process (10% of
grade)
The student was creative,
resourceful, strategic, identified steps
needed to reach goals, successfully managed the project, evaluated
progress and adapted approaches.
(S)he implemented the project in a professional
manner, met regularly
and collaborated well with thesis mentor/advisor and peer, and carried
the project through proactively.
Drafts were improved following advice from
advisors,
mentors and peers
(S)he handled uncertain, complex, real-world
problems in the lab,
field, etc. Overall evaluation:
Acceptable
(C)
Good
(B)
Outstanding
(A)
Highly exceptional
(A+)
Comment:
Presentations (10% of grade)
The student clearly communicated background, analysis, interpretations
and significance through oral and poster presentations.
Acceptable
(C)
Good
(B)
Outstanding
(A)
Highly exceptional
(A+)
Thesis (proposal) (80% of grade) Dear reviewer: please evaluate the
thesis (proposal) by checking the appropriate boxes below and
provide more detailed comments in the space
provided below the boxes
The title is clear, compact
and to the point, it contains all key
identifiers of the (proposed) research.
Acceptable
(C)
Good
(B)
Outstanding
(A)
Highly exceptional
(A+)
The abstract introduces the topic and
clearly describes the main (preliminary, i.a.) findings in a
quantitative and space efficient way.
Acceptable
(C)
Good
(B)
Outstanding
(A)
Highly exceptional
(A+)
The introduction contains a compact but
comprehensive presentation of background and prior work in the topic
area starting broad and narrowing to a clear thesis statement. It
clearly defines the (proposed) research, and demonstrates student
capacity to locate, organize, analyze, integrate, synthesize, and
evaluate complex information from multiple and disparate sources.
Statements of fact are always properly referenced.
Acceptable
(C)
Good
(B)
Outstanding
(A)
Highly exceptional
(A+)
Analytical and quantitative (proposed) methods/approaches
are selected adequately and presented comprehensively and demonstrate
creativity.
Acceptable
(C)
Good
(B)
Outstanding
(A)
Highly exceptional
(A+)
(Preliminary) results are
comprehensive and presented in a clear and organized fashion. Data
analysis is appropriate and exhaustive, including statistice where
relevant.
Acceptable
(C)
Good
(B)
Outstanding
(A)
Highly exceptional
(A+)
The discussion thoroughly
interprets (preliminary) results in context of the thesis statement and
properly cited studies. It fully and creatively explores the
topic and demonstrates capacity to organize, analyze, integrate,
synthesize, and evaluate complex information from multiple and
disparate sources.
Acceptable
(C)
Good
(B)
Outstanding
(A)
Highly exceptional
(A+)
Recommendations (broader implications)
suggests further analysis, potential solutions to posed problems, and
potential use of findings in a broader context.
Acceptable
(C)
Good
(B)
Outstanding
(A)
Highly exceptional
(A+)
Writing quality - The
manuscript flows without gaps in the logic. It is well organized and
consistent with disciplinary style. Grammar is correct and there are no
typos. The style enhances the grasp of ideas and engages the reader.
Scientific terminology is adequately defined and used. Abbreviations
and acronyms are used only when absolutely necessary.
Acceptable
(C)
Good
(B)
Outstanding
(A)
Highly exceptional
(A+)
Figures, graphs and tables are
easy to readandconsiderably enhance the
understanding of the material. They adequately represent key points,
have appropriate captions and are interleaved with the text. Figures
are sharp, each axis/symbol is labeled, units are included and
different symbols are legible.
Acceptable
(C)
Good
(B)
Outstanding
(A)
Highly exceptional
(A+)
Literature is exhaustive and
synthesized to enhance reader’s understanding of the topic and to show
the relationship of the study to the discipline. References include
relevant and up-to-date sources (at least 15 for proposal, 30 for
thesis). They follow the disciplinary format and are referred to in the
text.