Faculty of Humanities
ASSESSMENT FORM
MASTER THESIS
DETAILS STUDENT
Name
Student number
Master programme
Thesis title
Date of submission
DETAILS SUPERVISOR
Name
Programme
DETAILS
2ND ASSESSOR (not involved in supervision)
Name
Programme
Evaluation by:
□
supervisor
□
2nd assessor
□
3rd assessor*
PROPOSED Grade:
Date and signature:
* if the thesis receives a grade of 6 or 6.5 it has to be re-assessed by a Full professor
(Regulation Grensgevallen).
FORMAL REQUIREMENTS **
Comment
CONDITION
Declaration of acquaintance with the
regulations for plagiarism
Correct use of language (syntax,
spelling, punctuation)
Table of contents and summary
Annotation and bibliography according
to the formal rules of the discipline
Style and form according to the
guidelines of the programme
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
pass
fail
pass
fail
pass
fail
pass
fail
pass
fail
** If the student fails one or more of the above formal requirements, the thesis will not
be assessed further in terms of its contents. The student will receive an opportunity to
take a resit, but consequently loses the right for a further repair trajectory after the
definitive version of the thesis has been assessed.
CONTENT EVALUATION/ASSESSMENT
Per category, the assessor provides an overall evaluation supported by a more elaborate
comment in which the strengths and weaknesses are clarified. In case of an insufficient
evaluation, make clear what the student has to improve in order to pass.
1. STATING THE PROBLEM
□
insufficient
□
sufficient
□
good
Is the problem/research question clearly formulated in the introduction? Do the sub-questions derive in
a logical manner from the main research question? Are the parameters of the research clearly indicated
and is this demarcation sufficiently underpinned? Is the student also aware of the limitations of the
chosen approach?
Comment:
2. ACADEMIC POSITIONING
□
insufficient
□
sufficient
□
good
Is the scientific relevance of the research made clear? Is the research positioned adequately within the
academic debate? Is there no essential perspective missing?
Comment:
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
□
insufficient
□
sufficient
□
good
Do the chosen theories and/or the analytical concepts comply with the research question? Is the
literature used in the thesis relevant, representative and of sufficient academic quality? Is the literature
adequately discussed and also addressed in a critical manner? Are the central concepts/terms clearly
defined?
Comment:
4. METHOD
□
insufficient
□
sufficient
□
good
Is the chosen methodology sufficiently justified? Are the methodologies employed in the thesis adequate
for approaching the research question(s)? Are they used in the correct manner? Are the strategies to
collect data well described and realistic?
Comment:
5. ANALYSIS
□
insufficient
□
sufficient
□
good
Does the research show sufficient analytical profundity? Is the knowledge of the academic field
sufficiently and adequately used? Is there a good balance between elaboration/description and analysis?
Is the connection between the gained (empirical) research results and the literature/theory sufficient?
Comment:
6. CONCLUSION
□
insufficient
□
sufficient
□
good
Does the conclusion provide an answer to the problem/research question of the thesis? Does the
conclusion exceed the level of a mere summary? Does the conclusion effectively address the literature
and is this done in a synthesizing and conclusive manner? Does the thesis reflect critically on its
approach? Does it provide suggestions for further research?
Comment:
□
7. USE OF SOURCES & REFERENCING
□
insufficient
□
sufficient
good
Does the thesis distinguish sufficiently between original analysis and use of material by others? Is the
referencing in the thesis adequate and consistent? Are quotations used correctly? Does the thesis
engage critically with the literature and the other sources?
Comment:
8. STRUCTURE OF THE ARGUMENT
□
insufficient
□
sufficient
□
good
Is the thesis presented in a logical order (e.g. introduction/theoretical framework, research question,
methodology, results, discussion)? Is there a clear chapter structure and a subdivision within the
chapters? Is the argumentation clear and coherent? Are the chapters and subsections coherent and
clearly delineated in terms of content?
Comment:
9.READABILITY & STYLE
□
insufficient
□
sufficient
□
good
Is the thesis readable and comprehensible? Has the terminology (appropriate to the relevant discipline)
been employed in precise and specific manners? Is the text written in the student’s own language or
does the text remain too close to used sources? Does the thesis avoid repetition, long-winded language
and vague formulations? Are relevant examples strategically used?
Comment:
10. INDEPENDENCE
(to be filled in by the supervisor)
□
insufficient
□
sufficient
□
good
Has the supervisor's feedback been carefully processed? Have the agreements and deadlines been
respected? Did the student need a lot of help during the supervision process? If yes, on which points
(e.g. formulations of the research questions, demarcation of the literature, structure of the
argumentation, language)?
11. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Note here your comments concerning aspects of the innovative quality of the research, the societal
relevance of the thesis, etc.
SUMMARIZED
ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED GRADE: