EST
ENGContent
The Content category covers the substantial value of the thesis. In this category it is important to see if the substantial decisions were meaningful and adequate. Did the work have a clear substantial goal, were competent means used to achieve it, and do the results have a substantial value? This category answers the question "What was done?"
Was the goal of the work important and interesting?
3.00
1 – The goal was extremely inappropriate.
2 – The work solves an already solved goal.
3 – The work's goal is somewhat important.
4 – The work's goal is important and interesting.
5 – The work's goal is important, interesting, and timely.
Have the sources been used in a substantial and interconnected way?
3.00
1 – The use of sources is extremely inappropriate.
2 – The used sources are disconnected from the topic.
3 – Many of the sources are disconnected from the topic but the use is substantial.
4 – Most of the sources are connected with the topic and the use is substantial.
5 – Practically all the sources are connected with the topic and their use is very substantial.
Has the topic been covered enough considering the work's goal and level?
3.00
1 – The topic coverage is extremely inappropriate.
2 – The topic is not covered enough considering the work's level.
3 – The topic coverage has shortcomings.
4 – The topic is covered well considering the work's level and sufficiently considering the goal.
5 – The topic coverage is very thorough and unbiased.
Has the literature been understood correctly?
3.00
1 – The literature interpretation is extremely inappropriate.
2 – The literature interpretation is wrong.
3 – Generally the literature has been interpreted correctly but there are mistakes in understanding.
4 – The literature has been interpreted correctly.
5 – The literature has been interpreted correctly and understood thoroughly.
Are the chosen methods reasonable and the approach to the topic logical?
3.00
1 – The chosen methods are extremely inappropriate.
2 – The methods are unreasonable and the approach to the problem illogical.
3 – The choice of methods could be better, but the problem has been approached logically.
4 – The choice of the methods is reasonable and the approach to the problem logical.
5 – The choice of the methods is surprisingly reasonable and the approach exceptionally logical.
Have the results been analyzed reasonably?
(compared with others, shortcomings investigated)
(compared with others, shortcomings investigated)
3.00
1 – The analysis of the results is extremely inappropriate.
2 – The analysis of the results is missing.
3 – The analysis of the results is shallow.
4 – The analysis of the results is reasonably thorough.
5 – The analysis of the results is reasonably thorough, varied, and exciting.
Are the results valuable?
(applicable and timely)
(applicable and timely)
3.00
1 – The results are extremely inappropriate (eg, made up).
2 – The results have no value (eg, discovered already long ago).
3 – The results are somewhat valuable.
4 – The results are valuable.
5 – The results are timely and very valuable.
Do the results have quality?
3.00
1 – The quality of the results is very inappropriate (eg, several educational levels lower).
2 – The quality of the results is missing.
3 – The quality of the results is varying.
4 – The results have quality.
5 – The results have high quality and are exceptional.
Complexity
The Complexity category covers the difficulty of the work. It should be suitable for both the thesis level and the author's personal preparation. Different thesis types have a diffierent focus. It is necessary to ensure that the author has used the methods of their thesis type sufficiently thouroughly. This category answers "How complex was the goal and its solution?"
Was the goal sufficiently complex?
3.00
1 – The goal was inappropriately trivial or too complicated.
2 – The goal was largely trivial or too complicated.
3 – The goal was somewhat trivial or too complicated.
4 – The goal was sufficiently complicated for the work's level.
5 – The goal was a sufficient challenge for the work's level.
Are there enough credible (strong) sources cited?
3.00
1 – Strong sources are practically missing.
2 – There are only a few strong sources.
3 – There are both weak and strong sources, but not enough of the strong ones.
4 – The are enough strong sources.
5 – There is an astonishing amount of strong sources.
How complicated was the work for the author?
3.00
1 – Achieving the results was inappropriately trivial or complicated.
2 – Achieving the results was not minimally complicated.
3 – Achieving the results was minimally complicated.
4 – Achieving the results was adequately complicated.
5 – Achieving the results was a nicely met challenge.
Does the work meet the requirements of its type?
3.00
1 – The work does not meet the requirements of any of the thesis types.
2 – The work insufficiently covers the requirements of a single type.
3 – The work covers the requirements of several types, but is much lacking in its main type.
4 – The work covers the requirements of its main type.
5 – The work exceptionally covers the requirements of its main type or additionally covers requirements of another type.
Does the work done cover the thesis credits?
(1 ECTS credit = 26 hours)
(1 ECTS credit = 26 hours)
3.00
1 – The work done is under 10% of the specified amount.
2 – The work done is between 10-50% of the specified amount.
3 – The work done is between 50-75% of the specified amount.
4 – The work done is between 75-95% of the specified amount.
5 – The work done is 95% or more of the specified amount.
Appearance
The Appearance category covers the formatting of the written part. It is expected that the author is capable of expressing their thoughts in academic writing and illustrations. The appearance can be assessed also on external objects (eg, source code, learning materials). This category asks "How well is the work conveyed through writing and visuals?"
Is the work's goal clearly understandable?
3.00
1 – The explanation of the goal is extremely inappropriate.
2 – The goal is not understandable.
3 – The goal is somewhat understandable.
4 – The goal is clearly understandable.
5 – The goal is very clearly understandable and illustrated.
Have the used methods been presented with reasonable clarity?
3.00
1 – The explanations of the methods are extremely inappropriate.
2 – The explanations of the methods are missing or not understandable.
3 – The explanations of the methods are hard to understand.
4 – The explanations of the methods are clearly understandable.
5 – The explanations of the methods are very clearly understandable and illustrated.
Have the results been presented in a good way?
3.00
1 – The results have been presented in an extremely inappropriate way.
2 – The presentation of the results is missing or not understandable.
3 – The presentation of the results is hard to understand.
4 – The presentation of the results is clearly understandable and it has been done in a good way.
5 – The presentation of the results is very clearly understandable and the way it has been done is amazing.
Is the work linguistically well written?
3.00
1 – The text is unreadable.
2 – There are many linguistical errors and the text is very hard to read.
3 – There are several linguistical errors and the text is hard to read.
4 – There are some linguistical errors, but the text is quite readable.
5 – There are practically no linguistical errors and the text is exceptionally well-readable.
Is the text stylistically academic?
3.00
1 – The style of the text is extremely inappropriate for an academic work.
2 – The style of the text is not academic at all.
3 – The style of the text is often not academic.
4 – The style of the text is generally academic.
5 – The style of the text is academic and the academic style has been used very competently.
Is the structure of the work logical?
3.00
1 – The structure of the work is extremely inappropriate.
2 – The structure is illogical.
3 – The structure should be more logical.
4 – The structure is generally logical.
5 – The structure is surprisingly logical.
Is the illustrative material visually pleasing and clear?
3.00
1 – The illustrative material is extremely inappropriate.
2 – The illustrative material is ugly and confusing.
3 – The illustrative material should be prettier and clearer.
4 – The illustrative material is generally beautiful and clear.
5 – The illustrative material is exceptionally beautiful and clear.
Have the citations been formatted correctly?
3.00
1 – The formatting of the citations is extremely inappropriate.
2 – The citations are not formatted or do not respect any standard.
3 – The citations are formatted based on a standard, but it has been done erroneously.
4 – The citations are formatted based on a standard without substantial mistakes.
5 – The citations are formatted based on a standard and practically flawlessly.
Are the citations in the necessary places?
3.00
1 – Practically the entire work is a plagiarism.
2 – There is a large number of uncited places.
3 – There are several uncited places.
4 – Generally, the necessary places are cited.
5 – Practically all the necessary places are cited.
Presentation
The presentation is assessed by the committee. It is important that the author can talk about their work publicly, present it to others, and discuss it. The presentation's content and form, as well as the academic discussion and the preparation for the opponent's questions are assessed. This category asks "How well can the author talk about their subject?"
Was the content of the presentation reasonable?
3.00
1 – The content of the presentation was extremely inappropriate.
2 – The content of the presentation was not about the thesis topic.
3 – The content of the presentation was about the thesis topic, but it was was confusing.
4 – The presentation was of the thesis topic and logical.
5 – The presentation was of the thesis topic, very logical, and captivating.
Was the academic discussion proficient?
3.00
1 – The behaviour during the academic discussion was extremely inappropriate.
2 – The skills to participate in the academic discussion were lacking.
3 – The participation in the academic discussion should have been better.
4 – The academic discussion of their topic with others was proficient.
5 – The academic discussion of their topic was proficient, respectable, and passionate.
Were the answers to opponent's questions prepared?
3.00
1 – The answers were extremely inappropriate.
2 – The answers to the opponent's questions were not prepared.
3 – The prepared answers were shallow.
4 – The prepared answers were thorough.
5 – The prepared answers were thorough and the topic further researched.
Was the presentation proficient?
3.00
1 – The behaviour during the presentation was extremely inappropriate.
2 – The range of tools and techniques was extremely limited and the time was missed by a lot.
3 – The range of tools and techniques was limited and the time was missed somewhat.
4 – The range of tools and techniques was varied and the time was somewhat accurate.
5 – The range of tools and techniques was impressive and it was practically in time.
Was the use of language proficient?
3.00
1 – The use of language was extremely inappropriate.
2 – There was a notable amount of language errors and the speech was not understandable.
3 – There were several language errors, but those did not hinder the understanding.
4 – The use of language was proficient.
5 – The use of language was proficient, both Estonian and English terms were known.
Were the slides visually good?
3.00
1 – The slides were extremely inappropriate.
2 – The slides did not work or included a lot of visual defects.
3 – The slides worked, but included a lot of visual defects like walls-of-text, bad font size, too small illustrations, etc.
4 – The slides worked and there were a few visual defects.
5 – The slides were visually impressive.
Total: 60.0
D
