The assessment criteria of a master's degree thesis are the same despite of the structure of the thesis.
| STARTING POINTS FOR THE THESIS | SATISFACTORY 1 | SATISFACTORY 2 | GOOD 3 | GOOD 4 | EXCELLENT 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thesis purpose and objectives, thesis subject. | The purpose and objectives can be discerned, but are unorganized. The subject of the thesis is weakly defined. | The purpose and objectives are realistic, but unorganized. The subject definition has flaws. | The purpose and objectives are mostly clear and realistic. The subject of the thesis is generally well defined. | The purpose and objectives are clear, realistic and well-formed. The subject of the thesis is well defined and significant. | The purpose and objectives are very clear, realistic and well-formed. The subject of the study is very well defined, and can lead to very significant results/applications. |
| Working life orientation and significance. | The thesis does not have a clear working life orientation. The significance for working life is weak or unclear, and it is argued for poorly, or not at all. | The thesis has a satisfactory working life orientation. The significance for working life is relatively modest, and it is only partly argued for. | The thesis has a relatively good, but not very well-established working life orientation. The significance for working life is still relatively good, and it is quite well argued for. | The thesis has a good and well-established working life orientation. The significance for working life is good, and it is well argued for. | The thesis has a strong and very well-established working life orientation. The significance of the work is exceptionally good, and it is very well argued for. |
| THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND USE OF SOURCES | SATISFACTORY 1 | SATISFACTORY 2 | GOOD 3 | GOOD 4 | EXCELLENT 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept definition, consistency of theoretical framework | The most central concepts are defined insufficiently. The subject knowledge is inadequate. The theoretical framework does not proceed logically and in a consistent way. | The most central concepts are satisfactorily defined. The theoretical framework does not proceed logically and consistently in all respects. | Key concepts are rather well defined. The theoretical framework proceeds logically and consistently in general. | Key concepts are well defined. The theoretical framework proceeds logically and consistently. | Key concepts are very well defined. The theoretical framework proceeds especially logically and consistently. |
| Use of sources, connection to earlier information | The use of sources is limited and narrow. There is no critical approach to the source materials and very limited conversation between sources. The report is not connected to the earlier information or discussion on the topic. | The use of sources is partly narrow. The apprach to the source materials is not always critical, and there is not much conversation between sources. The report is satisfactorily connected to the earlier information or discussion on the topic. | Sources have mostly been used in a diverse and critical way. There is some conversation between the sources used. The report is somewhat connected to the earlier information or discussion on the topic. | Sources have been used in a diverse and critical way. There is enough conversation between the sources used. The report is well connected to the earlier information or discussion on the topic. | Sources have been used in a very diverse and critical way. There is plenty of meaningful conversation between the sources used. The report is connected to the previous information and discussion on the topic in an excellent and innovative way. |
| METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES, USE OF METHODS | SATISFACTORY 1 | SATISFACTORY 2 | GOOD 3 | GOOD 4 | EXCELLENT 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of methods, methodological discussion | The choice of methods is not well-justified. The use of methodological literature is limited or non-existent. | The choice of methods is partly not well-justified. The use of methodological literature is not always appropriate and/or the sources are used narrowly. | The choice of methods is mostly well-justified. The use of methodological literature is mainly adequate. | The choice of methods is well-justified. The use of methodological literature is adequate. | The choice of methods is exceptionally well-justified. The use of methodological literature is excellent and diversified. |
| Command of methods | The command of the chosen methods and analyses is insufficient. The practical research/development solutions are inadequately justified. | The command of the chosen methods and analyses is partly insufficient. The practical research/development solutions are satisfactorily justified. | The command of the chosen methods and analyses is mostly good. The practical research/development solutions are mostly well-justified. | The command of the chosen methods and analyses is good. The practical research/development choices are well-justified. | The command of the chosen methods and analyses is impressive. The practical research/development choices are justified exceptionally well. |
| THESIS RESULTS/OUTCOMES | SATISFACTORY 1 | SATISFACTORY 2 | GOOD 3 | GOOD 4 | EXCELLENT 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suitability of the results/outcomes to the purpose and objectives of the thesis | The results/outcomes do not answer the purpose and objectives of the thesis in an adequate way, and do not provide novelty value. | The results/outcomes partly answer the purpose and objectives of the thesis, and provide only limited novelty value. | The results/outcomes mostly answer the purpose and objectives of the thesis, and provide some novelty value. | The results/outcomes answer the purpose and objectives of the thesis well, and provide good novelty value. | The results/outcomes answer the purposes of the thesis very well, and provide very good and significant novelty value. |
| Consistency and presentation of results/outcomes | The results/outcomes are presented inconsistently. The illustrative material is not very suitable for the nature of the work, and adds only little value. | The results/outcomes are presented somewhat inconsistently. The illustrative material is partly suitable for the nature of the work, and adds some value. | The results/outcomes are presented mostly consistently. The illustrative material is quite suitable for the nature of the work, and adds mostly good value. | The results/outcomes are presented consistently. The illustrative material is suitable for the nature of the work, and adds good value. | The results/outcomes are presented very consistently. The illustrative material is very suitable for the nature of the work, and adds very good and substantial value. |
| CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION | SATISFACTORY 1 | SATISFACTORY 2 | GOOD 3 | GOOD 4 | EXCELLENT 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conclusions and discussion | The conclusions have been presented and articulated poorly. The discussion about the thesis results in relation to the theoretical framework and earlier results is weak or missing. | The conclusions have been presented and articulated satisfactorily. The discussion about the thesis results in relation to the theoretical framework and earlier results is satisfactory. | The conclusions have been presented and articulated mostly well. The discussion about the thesis results in relation to the theoretical framework and earlier results is mostly good. | The conclusions have been presented and articulated well. The discussion about the thesis results in relation to the theoretical framework and earlier results is good. | The conclusions have been presented and articulated very well. The discussion about the thesis results in relation to the theoretical framework and earlier results is impressive. |
| Assessment of reliability and ethics | The discussion about reliability and ethics is weak or missing completely. The use of sources in this discussion is weak. | The discussion about reliability and ethics is satisfactory. The use of sources in this discussion is satisfactory. | The discussion about reliability and ethics is mostly good. The use of sources in this discussion is mostly good. | The discussion about reliability and ethics is good. The use of sources in this discussion is good. | The discussion about reliability and ethics is very good. The use of sources in this discussion is very good and versatile. |
| Utilization opportunities of results/outcomes | The utilization opportunities and restrictions of the results/outcomes have been discussed poorly. | The utilization opportunities and restrictions of the results/outcomes have been discussed satisfactorily. | The utilization opportunities and restrictions of the results/outcomes have been discussed quite well. | The utilization opportunities and restrictions of the results/outcomes have been discussed well. | The utilization opportunities and restrictions of the results/outcomes have been discussed very well. |
| WRITTEN PRESENTATION | SATISFACTORY 1 | SATISFACTORY 2 | GOOD 3 | GOOD 4 | EXCELLENT 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logical structure | The structure of the report is unorganized. | The structure of the report has some shortcomings. | The structure of the report is organized. | The structure of the report is logical and clear | The structure of the report is very logical and descriptive, and progresses efficiently. |
| Grammatical correctness | The text is mainly understandable, but there are many shortcomings in the grammar (sentence structure, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation). | The text is mainly understandable, but there are some shortcomings in the grammar (sentence structure, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation). | The text is understandable and explicit. There are not many shortcomings in the grammar (sentence structure, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation). | The text is fluent, understandable and grammatically correct. | The text is very fluent and grammatically correct. |
| Academic style of writing | The text contains colloquial language (informal and spoken expressions). | The text contains some colloquial language (informal and spoken expressions). | The text follows the expected style register. | The text follows the expected style register well. | The text follows the expected style register very well. |
| THESIS PROCESS AND PROFESSIONAL GROWTH | SATISFACTORY 1 | SATISFACTORY 2 | GOOD 3 | GOOD 4 | EXCELLENT 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Progress of thesis process, commitment and cooperation | The thesis process has not progressed according to the plan. The student's commitment to the process has been poor. The student's cooperation has been inadequate or non-existent. | The thesis process has not progressed fully according to the plan. The student's commitment to the process has been average. The student's cooperation has been satisfactory. | The thesis process has progressed mainly according to the plan. The student's commitment to the process has generally been good. The student's cooperation has mainly worked well. | The thesis process has progressed well according to the plan. The student's commitment to the process has been good. The student's cooperation has been good. | The thesis process has progressed very well according to the plan, and the student has also taken initiative. The student's commitment to the process has been very good. The student's cooperation has been active and impressive. |
| Reflection, learning and professional growth | The student's reflection of the thesis process on personal learning and professional growth is very limited. Its connection to the major competence areas of the Master's degree is weak or non-existent. | The student's reflection of the thesis process on personal learning and professional growth is satisfactory. It is only partly connected to the major competence areas of the Master's degree. | The student's reflection of the thesis process on personal learning and professional growth is mostly good. It is mostly well connected to the major competence areas of the Master's degree. | The student's reflection of the thesis process on pe rsonal learning and professional growth is good. It is well connected to the major competence areas of the Master's degree. |
The student's reflection of the thesis process on personal learning and professional growth is very good. It is very well connected to the major competence areas of the Master's degree. |