CE901 MSc Dissertation Grading Guidelines | University of Essex

Attributes

Marking Criteria

Weight

1. Quality of the Report

In this section you should provide an assessment of the REPORT, rather than the work it presents.

1.1 Organisation of the Report

• Does the report provide the reader with a clear account, at an appropriate technical level, of the research undertaken?

• Does it clearly state the questions that the work was intended to answer?

• Does it put these questions into context by providing an appropriate summary of related work by other researchers?

• Does the report provide a clear and coherent account of the work undertaken?

• Is there a clear and coherent account of the significant features of the system that was

• implemented?

• Is there a clear and coherent account of how the behaviour of the system was evaluated?

• Does the report provide a clear and coherent account of the conclusions that can be drawn from the investigation?

15%

1.2 Presentation Quality of the Report

• Is the presentation of the report of an appropriately professional standard?

• Is it written in clear grammatical English?

• Has effective use been made of document preparation tools to produce a report that can be read easily?

• Has the spelling been checked and corrections made?

• Is appropriate use made of figures and tables to aid the reader in understanding the work

• undertaken?

• Is appropriate use made of appendices to present supplementary material (including the source code)?

• Does the report contain a properly structured bibliography that provides citations to all work to which reference has been made?

15%

2. Quality and Quantity of the Investigation

In this section you should provide an assessment of WORK DESCRIBED in the report, rather than the report itself.

2.1 Level of the Investigation

• Was the work undertaken at a graduate level and appropriate to the degree scheme?

• Did the work undertaken go beyond the taught course syllabus?

• Did the project involve an element of original thought or investigation?

10%

2.2 Quantity of the Investigation

• Does the amount of work undertaken constitute four months work for a competent graduate student?

• Was the project particularly demanding or particularly simple?

• Did the project present unanticipated difficulties that limited what could be achieved?

10%

2.3 Quality of the Investigation

• Was the project appropriately grounded in previous work in the area?

• Was there due consideration of relevant literature?

• Was the investigation well designed?

• Were the objectives well formulated?

• Were the methods adopted appropriate and adequate to these objectives?

10%

2.4 Quality of the Evaluation

• Were appropriate conclusions drawn from the investigation?

• Did the conclusions show evidence of critical reflection on the project’s achievements?

• Were any conclusions drawn justified by the work undertaken?

• Were unresolved issues identified and suggestions made as to how they might be addressed?

15%

3. Quality of the Implementation

In this section you should provide an assessment of the implementation based on BOTH the account presented in the report and the demonstration that formed part of the oral presentation.

For projects of a predominantly experimental nature, this section should be used to assess the quality of the experimental work carried out.

• Was the implementation completed?

• Did it function as intended?

• Did it function as claimed in the report?

• Was the implementation of sufficiently high standard for this degree scheme?

20