MSc Project Marking Guidelines

The project is assessed on the basis of a written final dissertation. Dissertations will typically conform to the following format:

Title page with abstract.
Introduction : an introduction to the document, clearing stating the hypothesis or objective of the project, motivation for the work and the results achieved. The structure of the remainder of the document should also be outlined.
Background : background to the project, previous work, exposition of relevant literature, setting of the work in the proper context. This should contain sufficient information to allow the reader to appreciate the contribution you have made.
Description of the work undertaken : this may be divided into chapters describing the conceptual design work and the actual implementation separately. Any problems or difficulties and the suggested solutions should be mentioned. Alternative solutions and their evaluation should also be included.
Analysis or Evaluation : results and their critical analysis should be reported, whether the results conform to expectations or otherwise and how they compare with other related work. Where appropriate evaluation of the work against the original objectives should be presented.
Conclusion : concluding remarks and observations, unsolved problems, suggestions for further work.
Bibliography.

This format is given for guidance only. The structure of an MSc dissertation should be chosen to suit the project. Many projects involve the construction of an artefact, whether software, hardware, a robotic device, some other artefact incorporating computation, or some combination of these. Other projects may focus on the construction of a service, using at least some computational elements as components. In such cases, the dissertation should recognise the importance of the product or service, and its context of use.

In addition, the dissertation must be accompanied by a statement declaring that the student has read and understood the University's plagarism guidelines. Examiners may use the Turnitin plagarism detection software.

The dissertation presents work of extended scholarship, often the result of original work or in-depth research of a topic. The work should demonstrate, amongst other things, advanced level of knowledge and understanding of the field of study, and an ability to undertake research. The dissertation must be satisfactory in its presentation and reference to other sources. Since the time and resources available to the candidate are relatively restricted it is not expected that the dissertation will report notable or original contributions to knowledge. The masters dissertation and associated works of scholarship are primarily teaching, learning and examining media, not media for the presentation of research of original work outcomes to public or peers.

Projects should be assessed in terms of a number of basic and other criteria. These are:

Basic Criteria
- The problem is clearly stated and the student demonstrates an understanding of the problem.
- The work is `complete', with a coherent conclusion and evidence in support of it.
- The quality of the work demonstrates a thoroughness and clarity in approach.
- The quality of presentation is of an adequate standard, with the arguments well-structured and the English fluent.
Additional Criteria
- The student demonstrates extensive knowledge of the literature
- There is an excellent critical evaluation of previous work
- There is a critical evaluation of the student's own work
- There is sound justification of design decisions
- There is a novel solution of conceptual problems
  - The project combines design thinking and informatics theory and/or methods in an effective way.
- The amount of work undertaken is more than one would expect, in the time available.
  - There is an effective prototype product or service
Exceptional Criteria
- There is evidence of outstanding merit e.g. originality
- The dissertation includes material worthy of publication in peer-reviewed outlets.

Note that according to the University's marking regulations (see the document Taught Assessment Regulations (PDF), and in particular page 32), a dissertation may be judged satisfactory, as presented and without alteration, despite containing small deficiencies and editorial imperfections.

From October 2012 onwards, it is no longer possible for markers to recommend that marginal fails be resubmitted with minor ammendments. Resubmissions are not permitted unless this has been approved by CSPC on the basis of a case submitted by the College of Science and Engineering. If the Board of Examiners wishes a student to resubmit, a case on the basis of special circumstances needs to be submitted to CSPC as a College-requested concession.

Accordingly, markers should assign projects their marks according to the following criteria:

0-39:: The dissertation is inadequate or poor on each of the basic criteria. The candidate will fail for MSc, but may obtain a diploma based on exam performance.
40-47:: The dissertation is poor on each of the basic criteria. The candidate will fail for MSc, but may obtain a diploma based on exam performance.
48-49:: The dissertation is borderline, the Board of Examiners will consider whether to award an MSc.
50-52:: The dissertation is fair on each of the basic criteria. The MSc will be awarded.
53-56:: The dissertation is at least fair on each of the basic criteria and is fair on some of the additional criteria.
57-59:: The dissertation is at least fair on each of the basic criteria and is fair on most of the additional criteria.
60-62:: The dissertation is at least good on each of the basic criteria and is at least fair on each of the additional criteria.
63-66:: The dissertation is at least good on each of the basic criteria and is at least fair and sometimes good on each of the additional criteria.
67-69:: The dissertation is at least good on each of the basic criteria and is at least fair and most times good or excellent on each of the additional criteria.
70-79:: The dissertation is good or excellent on each of the basic and additional criteria.
80-89:: The dissertation is good or excellent on each of the basic and additional criteria and also has some elements of the exceptional criteria.
90-100:: The dissertation is good or excellent on each of the basic and additional criteria and also shows clear evidence of the exceptional criteria.

Note that the 'completion' criterion covers achievement of the original objectives, achievement of modified objectives or providing convincing evidence that the objectives are unachievable. The 'outstanding merit' criterion includes originality and the excellence of engineering.

Many dissertations will not fit neatly into any category, e.g. strong on additional criteria, but weak on a basic one. In this case, examiners are asked to trade one criterion off against another as best they can, bearing in mind that failure on a basic criterion is a serious fault.

The degree may be awarded with distinction. For a distinction, the candidate must have been awarded at least 70% for the dissertation and other work from the taught element of the course must have also be assessed and awarded a mark which is close to, or above the 70% standard.

The dissertation may be judged to be marginally unsatisfactory if the examiner feels that an unambiguous pass cannot be justified. In this case the mark awarded for the work should be in the range 48-49%. The Board of Examiners will make the final decision, possibly based on any special circumstances. There is no longer a mechanism for a candidate to revise the dissertation. If the dissertation, as submitted, clearly does not demonstrate the required standard, an unambiguous fail mark (47% or below) should be awarded.

When examiners are aware of any mitigating factors which should be taken into account, these should not be compensated for in the assessment but should be mentioned in the appropriate section of the report with an indication of the degree of compensation felt to be appropriate. Similarly if an examiners feels that the dissertation does not do justice to the work carried out by the candidate, this should be made clear in the report together with an explanation. In all cases reasons for the overall grading must be given.

In the General Comments section, examiners should include a little contextual information as to what the thesis is about, in no more than one sentence or two. Supervisors should also note the extent to which the candidate was self-directed or required close supervision. Original contributions by the candidate or novelty in the project should also be highlighted. If the project involved extending existing code, the examiner should try to estimate how much work was put into researching the pre-existing background.

It is very important that the comments that are written on the mark sheet are sufficiently informative to justify the mark awarded the dissertation.

In all cases, it is the Board of Examiners that make the final decision, based on the mark sheets and agreed marks. Except under exceptinoal circumstances, individual mark sheets should be completed without consultation amongst examiners. If it is necessary to consult, this should be indicated appropriately on the submitted form.

Examiners are invited to nominate a dissertation for a prize if they think this is appropriate. Making such a nomination on the project marking form will allow External Examiners to adjudicate between competing projects.

This page is maintained by Jon Oberlander

Home : Teaching : Courses : Mdi