Assessment Criteria for MSc Dissertations – Empirical/Valuation Project

AssessmentCriteriaforMScDissertations1.pdf

Assessment Criteria for MSc Dissertations – Empirical/Valuation Project

General Criteria/ Marker’s Comments

Introduction Literature Review Empirical/Valuation Framework and Data Description

Empirical/Valuation Analysis

Conclusion Written Communication (Presentation)

80+ High

Distinction

• -Incisive introduction • -Comprehensive and

persuasive rationale • -Clear statement of the

research problem and associate objectives

-Sources used with discrimination -Coherent and entirely justified conceptual framework to support the research undertaken -Sophisticated use of examples

-Fully appropriate choice and application of data collection methods which is entirely justified -Correct sourcing -Highly original and creative selection of data

-Strong and broad evidence of an excellent level of analysis and use of appropriate techniques -Exceptional analysis of key concepts with very clear originality and autonomy

• -Strong original conclusion • -Extensive evidence of the

ability to critically evaluate the research results

-Excellent typography and layout -Lucid expressions -Sophisticated vocabulary -Excellent citation and bibliography norms

70 – 79.9 Distinction

-Focused introduction -Subject well justified -Clear statement of the research problem and associate objectives

-A wide range of sources consulted -Evidence of a sound discussion of the literature relevant to the study -Good use of examples

– Fully appropriate choice and application of data collection methods, well justified -Correct sourcing -Original, well-researched selection of data

-Critical appraisal and synthetic analysis -Excellent analysis of key concepts demonstrating independence of thought and a high level of intellectual rigour and consistency

-Conclusion advances debates -Extensive evidence of the ability to critically evaluate the research results

-Structured appropriately to the purposes of the assignment -Lucid expression with few flaws -Good use of vocabulary -Excellent citation and bibliography norms

60 – 69.9 Merit

-Clear and thoughtful introduction -Subject valid and relevant -Appropriate selection and justification of the methodology adopted

-Well selected range of sources consulted -Evidence of a comprehensive review of the literature relevant to the study -Appropriate examples

-Appropriate choice and application of data collection methods which is also well supported. – Well – researched selection of data

-Good analysis of key concepts -Development of conceptual structures and argument making consistent use of scholarly conventions

-Clear conclusions -Satisfactory evidence of the ability to critically evaluate the research results

-Good typography and layout -Good expression -Appropriate use of vocabulary -Few errors of grammar -Well – structured Accurate and full citation and bibliography

50 – 59.9 Pass

-Fair introduction -Subject has some validity and relevance -Rationale present but of marginal relevance

-A range of sources consulted -Indication of a satisfactory review of the literature relevant to the study but with some evident gaps and omissions -Limited range of examples sometimes inappropriate ones

-Mainly appropriate choice and application of data collection methods with some evidence of justification -Some errors and omissions in sourcing -Mainly standard range of data used

-Evidence of a satisfactory level of analysis and of use of appropriate techniques -Satisfactory knowledge of key concepts, descriptive in parts but some ability to synthesize scholarship and argument.

-Fair conclusions – Some evidence of appropriate justification for critical comment on and logical development but incomplete and / or illogically developed.

-Adequate typography and layout -Few serious errors of grammar; -Limited vocabulary -inconsistent citation and bibliography with significant omissions

<50 Fail

-Weak introduction -Descriptive with large gaps or misses the point

-Minimal range of sources consulted -Little attempt to support any assertions -Minimal range use of examples

-Inappropriate choice and application of data collection with no justification -Narrow or unskilled range of data used

-Limited knowledge of key concepts -Use of scholarly conventions inconsistent, largely descriptive with little synthesis of existing

-Weak conclusions -Conclusions sketchy or ill- matched

-Poor presentation -Flawed expression -Inaccurate citation and gaps in bibliography

scholarship and limited argument