Department of Engineering Sciences
Evaluation of master’s thesis / specialization project
Name of student
Assessment
of
Credits
Criterion:
Comments
Max.
score
Academic year
Assessment
(E=Examiner)
(S=Supervisor)
Academic/technical
foundation
10
(E)
Theoretical insight
10
(E)
Description of objectives
5
(E)
Methods and
approach to
work
Level of skill
10
(E+S)
Approach to work
5
(S)
(max. 25 p.)
Independence and effort
10
(S)
Result (the work)
10
(E+S)
Analysis, discussion and
conclusion
10
(E)
Critical reflection
7
(E)
Own contribution
/achievement of goals
8
(E)
Structure
5
(E)
Language
5
(E)
Form
5
(E)
Introduction
and theory
(max. 25 p.)
Results and
discussion
(max 35 p.)
Presentation
(max. 15 p.)
Oral
examination
Total
Presentation in
connection with the final
examination (it can
maintain the total grade,
or increase/decrease the
grade one level)
Final grade
Comments
(E+S)
100
(E)
Page 1 of 8
Department of Engineering Sciences
Basis for the grade decision: (Written explanation to be shared with the student)
Internal Examiner:
External Examiner:
Date and location:
Date and location:
Signature:
Signature:
•
Information from the supervisor to the assessment commission regarding the master’s
thesis (this applies to master’s thesis only) is submitted on a separate form.
• Assessment of the master’s thesis/specialization project includes an assessment of the
written work.
• The oral presentation is made in connection with the final examination and gives the
examiners the opportunity to investigate the candidate’s skills and clarify any uncertainties
regarding the assessment. The oral presentation can maintain the total grade, or
increase/decrease the grade one level.
Page 2 of 8
Department of Engineering Sciences
Use of the assessment form
The assessment form is both a working document for assessment commissions and serves as a
written explanation of the grading decision. In addition to the grade, the evaluation committee
should therefor agree on a short, written explanation giving the reason for the grade achieved.
The student will also be given access to the written explanation of the grading decision.
For the elements included in the assessment form, separate descriptions have been drawn up for
the aspects to be assessed.
Description of assessment elements
Academic/technical foundation (max 10 pt):
Is the theoretical and academic/technical basis clearly described, so that the work is positioned in the
context of relevant international research for the discipline?
Theoretical insight (max 10 pt):
Does the thesis, especially the introduction, demonstrate that the candidate has advanced knowledge of
the discipline’s theory and methods in general, as well as in-depth insight into a specific field of particular
importance to the thesis?
Description of objectives (max 5 pt):
Are the objectives and/or relevant hypotheses presented in a clear and understandable way?
Level of skill (max 10 pt):
Does the candidate master relevant methods and use them in the project work in an appropriate and
integrated way? Can the candidate plan and conduct very advanced experiments, computations or other
R&D tasks?
Approach to work (max 5 pt):
Has the candidate worked systematically and with an organized approach throughout the thesis process?
Did the candidate demonstrate the ability to plan the work, manage time, and adherence to research
protocols?
Independence and effort (max 10 pt):
Did the candidate work autonomously without excessive reliance on guidance? Was there evidence of selfdirected research, decision-making, and problem-solving? Did the student seek help appropriately when
needed but also demonstrate initiative? Did the candidate show a high level of dedication, persistence, and
overall commitment to the thesis project?
Page 3 of 8
Department of Engineering Sciences
Result (the work) (max 10 pt):
Does the work reflect creativity and/or contribute to innovation? Does the work appear to be particularly
extensive or comprehensive? How do you rate the quality and value of the new knowledge/results
generated by this work?
Analysis, discussion and conclusion (max 10 pt):
Are the analysis, interpretation/synthesis and discussion grounded in the discipline, and are they wellreasoned and clearly linked to the research question? Have the objectives been met using the defined
methodology and discussed using appropriate references based on the state of the art? Does the discussion
reflect a high academic standard? Can the candidate apply his or her knowledge and skills in new areas and
place the results in a broader context?
Critical reflection (max 7 pt):
Does the candidate demonstrate a reasonable understanding of the significance or value of the results?
Does the candidate have a critical approach to different sources of information? Are elements of
uncertainty, such as methodological errors, measurement errors and others, considered and discussed? Are
relevant issues in the subject area and research ethics discussed?
Own contribution and achievement of goals (max 8 pt):
Can the candidate clearly distinguish his or her own contribution from that of others? Does the written
work include a conclusion in which the results are well summarized with an evaluation of the extent to
which the objectives have been achieved? If not, or just partially, has a plausible explanation been
presented? Is there a reasonable and justified proposal for further studies or potential for further research?
Structure (max 5 pt):
Does the written work have an organized structure (normally IMRaD: Introduction, Methods, Results and
Discussion)? Is the work generally clearly presented?
Language (max 5 pt):
Is the candidate able to present the research questions and results with the required academic/technical
precision? Is the work easy to read and understand, using language of high quality?
Form (max 5 pt):
Is the style used for references, figures and tables consistent? Is the quality of figures and tables
satisfactory? Does the candidate have a good command of the subject area’s language and terminology?
Scoring guidelines
Each assessment criterion is given a subtotal so that the possible grand total is 100 %.
Page 4 of 8
Department of Engineering Sciences
For instance, if a criterion such as “Description of objectives” has a maximum score of 5 points, the points
are allocated according to the following scale:
5 points - almost perfect
4 points - very good, only minor shortcomings
3 points - good, but with clear shortcomings
2 points - just enough to be a satisfactory performance for the master’s degree
1 points - some value, but not good enough to be acceptable
0 points - little or nothing of value
If a criterion such as “Result (the work)” has a maximum score of 10 points, the points are allocated
according to the following scale:
10 points - almost perfect
8 points - very good, only minor shortcomings
6 points - good, but with clear shortcomings
4 points - just enough to be a satisfactory performance for the master’s degree
2 points - some value, but not good enough to be acceptable
0 points - little or nothing of value
Indicative point ranges for letter grades
Grade
A
B
C
D
E
F
Points range
90 - 100
80 – 89
60 - 79
50 – 59
40 – 49
0 - 39
Page 5 of 8
Department of Engineering Sciences
General description of the letter grades
Page 6 of 8
Department of Engineering Sciences
Page 7 of 8
Department of Engineering Sciences
Sources: Universities Norway (UHR), the Norwegian Qualifications Framework (NQF). Universitets- og
høgskolerådet karakterbeskrivelser: https://www.uhr.no/temasider/karaktersystemet/karakterbeskrivelser/
Page 8 of 8