Task

You need to apply what you have learned and prepare a convincing introduction for your master’s thesis.

You will go through key academic writing processes over the course of the semester, from finding a topic, writing a draft of the introduction to your master’s thesis, gathering feedback, revising your introduction and reflecting on the process. You will complete several deliverables in the process. These will reflect your learning progress and will be graded individually.

Deliverables

You need to deliver following parts via Moodle:

Initial version of the introduction to your master thesis (20 points; template)
Round-table discussion (bonus points)
Reflection and revision of your introduction (70 points; template)

For deadlines, please see the schedule

Grading

The deliverables are graded individually and determine the grade with the following weights:

20 points for the initial version of the introduction,
70 points for the reflection and revision
Bonus points for you contributions in the round-table discussions¹

Note: Compliance with formal requirements (see templates) and good scientific practice are critical pass criteria for all parts, means that in case of non-compliance the exam is automatically failed (e.g., plagiarism, even light forms).

Introduction

An introduction that fulfills expectations has the following characteristics

The proposal addresses a clear problem that is significant and interesting.
The research question (or research aim) is clearly stated and justified.
All core concepts are clearly defined.
The references to the current literature are clearly shown.
The potential contributions of the thesis are getting clear.
The proposal tells a conclusive story.
The thesis proposal is well aligned to the audience and testifies professionalism.
The author shows sophisticated use of a well-chosen vocabulary relevant to the topic.
The writing style, tone and word choice is appropriate and consistent.
Rules and conventions concerning technical aspects of writing are fulfilled.

Reflection

A reflection that fulfills expectations has the following characteristics

The feedback is thouroughly synthesized and analyzed
The justification of improvements is comprehensible
The tool usage is well documented and critically evaluated
The introduction has improved significantly
The learning progress is thoroughly reflected (i.e., meta-reflection)

A note on grades

It is unlikely that every student will receive a very good grade, i.e. deliver an outstanding performance - see the meaning of grades. Instead, it is to be expected that the grades will spread across the spectrum.

Grade	Meaning
`1` — very good	A truly outstanding achievement that (not only) shows no deficiencies in the criteria mentioned, but also gives both the supervisor and external assessors an excellent impression.
`2` — good	Work that exceeds the average requirements/performance and is easily recognizable and presentable to the outside world as a “good performance”.
Note	2.5 is the average of passed assessments, i.e., an “average performance”
`3` — satisfactory	A performance that achieves the desired goal “to a satisfactory extent”; however, deficiencies can be identified here and there.
`4` — sufficient	A performance that “still adequately satisfies” the requirements, but deviates from the expectations placed on it in several ways.
`5` — not sufficient	A performance that does not meet several of the criteria mentioned.

Footnotes

The bonus points are assigned based on your engagement in the discussions (particularly the quality of your feedback). These can improve your performance by up to one grade increments (up to .7).↩︎