Criteria for the evaluation of Bachelor's and Master's theses, handout version

Deutsche Version: Kriterien für die Bewertung von Bachelor- und Masterarbeiten, Handout-Version

You have decided to write a Bachelor's or Master's thesis at the Institute for Mechatronics in Mechanical Engineering. You will systematically work on an exciting topic and demonstrate that you have all the relevant skills and abilities for the title and activity as a bachelor or master in your respective discipline.

At the Institute of Mechatronics, we pay particular attention to ensure that our grading is comprehensible and objective. We have compiled a list of criteria in order to provide you with orientation points for your work. The weighting of the criteria varies depending on the task and the scope/complexity of the work. This document shall be seen as a guide for you and us, but not as a legally binding regulation.

The following page shows examples of evaluation criteria. Depending on the type of task or other influencing circumstances, individual criteria may be applicable or criteria not listed may be more important.

Breakdown of the grade

The grade for the Bachelor's/Master's thesis consists of three components.

Field	Grade Division	Graded by
Performance in execution	55% +/- 10%	Supervisor in consultation with examiner or co-examiner
Performance in presentation	20% +/- 5%	Supervisor, co-examiner, examiner
Performance in your written report	25% +/- 10%	Supervisor, examiner and 2nd research assistant

An "insufficient" in one area leads to an "insufficient" in all areas.

It is explicitly pointed out that with a bad presentation or a bad written thesis, a "very good" is almost impossible.

Criteria for the performance in execution

The following criteria lead to sub-ratings for "Organisation and methodology", "Content skills" and "Communication" and can be seen as guidelines to carry out an objective assessment.

Organisation and methodology

Criteria	excellent	poor
Independence, motivation	Student (S.) derives sub problems completely independently and works on them without help	Student (S.) can solve a task after several interposed questions, but help from the supervisor is always needed.
Time management	Independent setup, identification of time critical phases, reflection during the process, correction of phases	Large parts of the time management must be changed, complete only after repeated instructions.
Ongoing documentation	Meeting protocols written and available, decisions documented in a comprehensible manner	Usually no meeting protocols, Decisions usually not documented
Task clarification and structuration	Targeted active questioning in order to clarify the task, critical points are actively asked beforehand (e.g. list of requirements immediately complete, reasonable functional structure, understanding what it is good for, all sub problems identified and priorities set in a meaningful and comprehensible way).	repeated instructions necessary
Obtaining and evaluating information	Necessity and scope of literature research independently recognized and carried out within reasonable time; Interpretation and assessment of utility is reasonable
Solutions and decision finding	Sensible methods are used for all problems, justification for all decisions is clearly available, all necessary literature references are used, information on solutions is provided.	frequent reminders necessary, but improvement through repetition

Communication

Criteria	excellent	poor
Preparation for the interview and type of presentation	Independent presentation of the results and problems, understandable without questions ; Clear statement, which decisions must be made (e.g. reasonable agenda available (with critical points submitted beforehand) ; Documents represent clearly the essentials ; Copy for supervisors available ; All documents (also from past) available)	Presentation of the results and problems only by frequent asking of the supervisor represented; decisions are not addressed, still not after request by the supervisor (e.g. no agenda, only vague conception of contents of the meeting; no useful documents available)
Ability to discuss / Reflection	Stimulates discussions independently; presents their opinion briefly and concisely with tangible arguments; listens actively to others, processes what he or she has heard and deals with it; pays attention to the course of the discussion (time, staying with the topic, objective orientation); reacts objectively to criticism; insists on a detailed and useful result of the discussion; reflection self-motivated, consequences derived from it	Discussion only unwillingly after suggestion by supervisor ; opinion incomprehensibly presented ; does not try to understand the other; further development /results through discussion hardly seen ; can not deal with criticism ; discussion rules often violated ; reflection only on suggestion or not at all possible, no consequences derived
Implementation of the discussion results	Goes into the problems/results of the last session again, points out precisely worked out solution alternatives and presents the implementation ; all discussed points were worked on according to the results of previous sessions ; results were again questioned and further developed (discussion has triggered further thinking processes) ; clear increase in knowledge in the topics of the last session	No or only very simple findings from the last session were implemented ; no thought process recognizable ; arguments from the last session can no longer be displayed.

Content Result / Skills

Criteria	excellent	poor
Quantity of results and working speed	Quantity exceeds expectations, quick familiarization with new technology	only the most important components could be completed
Quality	Result meets all requirements, further ideas have been implemented, problems are solved very well, task is fulfilled very well	Result fulfills some subtasks but not overall task; many requirements not met
Closed result / usability	Result is completely finished and directly usable (plugs, buttons, cables, potentiometers,...are labeled; housing, front panels, racks,... are available; instruction manual exists; no rework worth mentioning)	Result is still incomplete, also partial solutions, but the complete construction is foreseeable in the distance; another thesis is needed to solve the problems
degree of innovation	completely new approach without role models

Criteria for the performance in presentation

As the presentation grade is rather subjective, here are some criteria and points we take into consideration for a good presentation.
The duration of the presentations (bachelor thesis, project thesis and master thesis) is 20 minutes.

Criteria	Descrition
Structure	Sensible choice of introduction from general to specific chosen (or variants thereof)
Slide design	Clear colouring, axis labels, "clean" design, sufficient resolution, correct source information
Guiding thought and presentation style	transitions between slides well solved, no breaks in content or if so, then with clear transition
Directed to audience	Observation of the audience, reaction to the the audiences attention; eye contact with the audience
Use of slides/contents	Use of pointing device, general interaction with the content and guiding through the content
Vitality / Attraction of the audiences attention	Enthusiasm for the subject and communicating the enthusiasm
Reaction and dealing with questions	Receiving questions, making sure that questions were understood and also answered

Criteria of the performance in the written report

The actual content and its value is part of the execution performance. The grade on the written report mainly evaluates the formalities and completeness of the documentation. A Bachelor/Master thesis should have 30 pages as the target size for the content. The rule of thumb is: a compact thesis where every sentence is thought through is worth more than a lengthy elaboration with many pages!

Data/further information must be part of a digital or analogue appendix.

It is checked for plagiarism. Plagiarisms have a direct influence on the work and can lead to an "insufficient" written grade and thus an insufficient overall grade. Quotations and text passages taken from other documents must be marked. The own creative activity must have the greatest share in the work (>>90%).

Criteria	Description
Structure	The work is well structured, all essential findings/areas can be quickly found by reading the table of contents.
Abstract	The summary is a true summary (maximum 0.5 pages) of the work and touches motivation, content and result equally.
Thematic classification	The work is placed in the context of the task. The text shows a clear understanding of the sources and preliminary work and makes reference.
Design	The work is "clean", axis labels, picture and diagram captions are available.
Citation	The sources are complete. The majority of relevant sources are cited. The number of sources is reasonable (here also: less but good sources is more!).
Integrity	The work is a proper documentation of what has been done. It describes the results and findings comprehensively.
Language	The work is written in an understandable way. The language is objective, gets by without filler words and sums up the facts.
Conclusion	The conclusion is a genuine reflection of the work, of what has been achieved and formulates a clear work assignment for the following works
Figures & Tables	Figures and Tables are used to enhance understanding and have a proper numbering and labeling. Content which can be more easily shown than explained is not part of the text but is introduced and then quickly refers to a figure/table.