This rubric is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Netherlands License
Authors: Arnold Moene, Mieke Latijnhouwers and others (Wageningen University, The Netherlands)
Rubric - MSc-thesis
version: 4.0 (source: thesisinternship-rubric-v4.0_20220628.xlsm)
Criterion and subcriterion
Unacceptable Insufficient
Needs
improvement
Just sufficient
Ample
Good
Very
good
Exemplary Points of
excellence
Grade: 2
3
Grade: 4
5
Grade: 6
7
Grade: 8
9
Grade: 10
Independence The student can only execute
the tasks properly after
repeated detailed instructions
and with direct help from the
supervisor.
The student needs detailed
instructions and well-defined
tasks from the supervisor and
the supervisor needs to
monitor the student to see if
all tasks have been performed.
Student depends mainly on
supervisor for setting out the
task, but the student performs
them mostly independently.
Student plans and performs
tasks mostly independently,
asks for help from the
supervisor when needed.
Student plans and performs
tasks independently and
organises their sources of help
independently.
Initiative and
creativity
Student shows no initiative or
new ideas at all.
Student adopts initiatives
others (e.g. supervisor), but
cannot motivate/explain the
rationale of these
initiatives/ideas themselves.
Student shows some initiative
and/or together with the
supervisor develops one or
two new ideas on minor parts
of the research.
Student initiates discussions
on new ideas with supervisor
and puts forward their own
creative ideas on hypothesis
formulation, design or data
processing.
Student develops and
implements innovative
hypotheses, methods and/or
analysis of information/data.
Possibly the idea for the
project has been formulated
by the student.
Commitment/
perseverance
Student is not motivated.
Student escapes work and
gives up regularly.
Student has little motivation.
Tends to be distracted easily
and shows little perseverance.
Student is motivated at times,
but often refers to the work as
a compulsory task. Is
distracted from thesis work
now and then.
The student is motivated and
shows ownership of the
project. Overcomes an
occasional setback
independently.
The student is very motivated,
shows ownership, and
overcomes setbacks
independently. Student goes
at length to get the most out
of the project (within the
planned period).
Receiving feedback Student does not follow up on
suggestions and ideas of the
supervisor. Shows a defensive
attitude to feedback.
Student follows up on some
suggestions and ideas of the
supervisor without any critical
reflection.
Student accepts feedback from
supervisor. Incorporates most
or all of the supervisor's
feedback adequately but
without much reflective
discussion.
Student welcomes feedback
from supervisor and asks for it
when needed. Student reflects
on feedback and incorporates
changes after engaging in a
discussion.
Student seeks and welcomes
feedback from supervisor and
other staff members or
students.
Student critically reflects on
feedback, uses it as a starting
point for further discussion
and proposes alternatives
Providing feedback Student does not provide
feedback to others, even when
asked for.
Student only provides
feedback when asked for.
Feedback is general, without
supporting examples or
without suggestions for
improvement.
Student provides well-founded
(with examples), specific
feedback when asked for.
Student spontaneously
provides balanced (positive
and negative), well-founded
(with examples), specific
feedback .
Student actively engages in
discussion with others to
deliver balanced (positive and
negative), well-founded (with
examples), specific and
constructive feedback.
Student checks whether
feedback is clear for receiver.
Knowledge and skills remain
insufficient (in relation to the
prerequisites) and the student
does not succeed to take
appropriate action to remedy
this.
Students’ progress in
knowledge and skills is limited
and requires extensive
guidance by the supervisor.
The student adopts knowledge
and skills as they are
presented during supervision.
The student adopts knowledge
and skills independently, and
asks for assistance from the
supervisor if needed.
Students explores solutions
independently and seeks
appropriate knowledge and
skills required.
No time schedule made, or
time schedule lacks all detail.
Final version of report or oral
presentation more than 50%
of the nominal period overdue
without a valid reason (force
majeure)
No realistic time schedule, or
repeatedly ignoring the time
on supervisor for keeping on
track.
Final version of report or oral
presentation overdue up to
50% of the nominal period
(without force majeur).
Mostly realistic time schedule,
but no timely adjustment of
time schedule if needed.
Final version of report or oral
presentation at most 25% of
nominal period overdue
(without force majeur)
Realistic time schedule, with
timely adjustments of time
schedule but without
reconsidering tasks.
Final version of report or oral
presentation at most 5% of
nominal period overdue
(without force majeur).
Realistic time schedule with
timely and effective
adjustments of both time and
tasks if necessary.
Final version of report and oral
presentation finished within
planned period (or overdue
because of force majeur and
finished within reasonable
time).
Student repeatedly makes
mistakes or performs tasks
inaccurately. Student violates
aspects of integrity.
Student does not pay
sufficient attention to details.
Student does not show
awareness of aspects of
integrity like transparency and
responsibility.
Student pays some attention
to details. Student is mostly
transparent in their choices
and acts responsibly towards
people and property.
Student pays attention to
details. Student is transparent
in their choices and acts
responsibly towards people
and property. Student is able
and willing to discuss integrity.
Student is conscientious and
efficient. Student is
transparent in their choices
and acts responsibly towards
people and property. Student
actively inquires, and initiates
discussions, about integrity.
1.3 Receiving and providing feedback
1.6 Performance on research/project tasks
1.1 Independence, Initiative and creativity
1.2 Commitment, perseverance and adaptivity
1.4 Development of knowledge and skills
1. Performance (40%)
1.5 Time management
date: 28/06/2022 page 1
Rubric - MSc-thesis
version: 4.0 (source: thesisinternship-rubric-v4.0_20220628.xlsm)
Criterion and subcriterion
Unacceptable Insufficient
Needs
improvement
Just sufficient
Ample
Good
Very
good
Exemplary Points of
excellence
Grade: 2
3
Grade: 4
5
Grade: 6
7
Grade: 8
9
Grade: 10
Select the type(s) of
activity relevant for
the research under
consideration
Study or experiment: Student
is not able to prepare for
and/or execute a study or
experiment based on detailed
instructions in protocol.
Data analysis: Student is
overwhelmed by data. Is not
able to use a spreadsheet
program or any other
appropriate data-basic
processing program.
Model or method
development: Student is not
able to make any
modification/addition to an
existing model/method.
Study or experiment: Student
is able to follow detailed
instructions to some extent,
but errors are made often,
invalidating (part of) the study
or experiment.
Data analysis: Student is able
transformations and/or
analyses, or student can do
data themselves.
Model or method
development: Student
modifies an existing
model/method, but errors
occur and persist. No
validation.
Study or experiment: Student
is able to follow detailed
instructions (without critical
assessment of sources of error
and uncertainty).
Data analysis: Student is able
to organize data and perform
some simple checks; but the
way the data are used does
not always clearly contribute
to answering of the research
questions.
Model or method
development: Student is able
to make minor modifications
(say a single formula or step)
to an existing model/method.
Validation is superficial or
absent.
Study or experiment: Student
is able to judge the setup of an
existing study or experiment
and to include modifications if
needed. Takes into account
sources of error and
uncertainty appropriately
(quantitatively where
applicable).
Data analysis: Student is able
to organize the data, perform
commonly used checks and
perform some advanced
analyses on the data.
Model or method
development: Student is able
to make major modifications
to an existing model/method,
based on literature and/or
own analyses. Validation
using appropriate (statistical)
measures.
Study or experiment: Student
is able to setup or adapt a
study or experiment tailored
to answering the research
questions. Appropriate
(quantitative where
applicable) consideration of
sources of error and
uncertainty. Execution of the
study / experiment is flawless
Data analysis: Student is able
to organize the data, perform
thorough checks and perform
advanced and original analyses
on the data
Model or method
development: Student is able
to develop a model/method
from scratch, or add an
important new part to an
existing model/method.
Excellent theoretical basis for
model/method as well as use
of advanced validation
methods.
Context No context of the research
given or the context described
is nonsensical.
Context of the research is
described in broad terms.
There is no link between the
described context and the
research questions /
hypothesis.
Context of the research is
correct but limited in width
and depth (e.g. does not go
beyond the information
provided by the supervisor).
Context of the research is
defined well and to-the-point
and includes the knowledge
gap. The research questions /
hypothesis emerge directly
from the described context.
Context of the research is
defined sharply, to-the-point,
funnelling from the broader
context to the knowledge gap.
The research questions /
hypothesis emerge directly
from the described context.
Novelty and innovation of the
research are indicated.
Research questions or
hypothesis
There is no researchable
research question or testable
hypothesis and the delineation
of the research is absent.
Most research questions are
unclear, or not researchable.
Hypothesis is not specific
and/or testable. Rationale of
research is not well-defined.
Delineation of the research is
weak.
Rationale of research and
research questions /
hypothesis are mostly clear,
but could have been defined
sharper at some points.
Delineation of the research is
provided.
Rationale of research is clear.
The research questions are
researchable, hypotheses are
testable. A clear delineation of
the research is provided.
Rationale of the research is
well-defined and linked to the
context. The research
questions are researchable,
clear and formulated to-the-
point. Hypothesis is specific
and testable. Research is
clearly delineated, also vis-a-
vis existing research.
No theoretical underpinning. There is some connection
made between the research
and underlying
theories/literature, but the
description shows serious
errors.
The relevant theory/literature
is used, but the description is
minimalistic, has not been
tailored to the research at
hand, or shows occasional
errors.
Student links the research to
relevant theory/literature and
identifies knowledge gap. The
relevant theory is synthesized,
and successfully tailored to the
research at hand.
Clear, complete yet to-the-
point, and coherent linkage to
relevant theories/literature.
Student develops hypothesis
based on well-defined
knowledge gap. Description
tailored to the research at
hand.
No description of research
methods and analysis of the
information/data, or
description is unintelligible.
Methods and analysis are not
appropriate.
Description of research
methods and analysis of
information/data is
minimalist,. incomplete or
unclear. Or some of the
methods and analysis used are
not appropriate.
Description of methods and
analysis of information/data is
mostly complete, but lacks
clarity or detail at some points,
hampering exact repetition of
the work. Some minor parts of
the methods and analysis used
are not to most appropriate.
Description of methods and
analysis of information/data is
clear and complete. All
methods and analysis are
appropriate. Level of detail
allows for a close to exact
repetition of the work.
Description of methods and
analysis of information/data is
clear, complete and
efficient/to-the-point.
Methods and analysis of
information/data are all
appropriate. Level of detail
and quality of description
enables exact repetition of
the work.
Based on the description the
reader is not able to
understand what results were
achieved.
Results or their connection to
the research questions /
hypothesis are unclear. Text,
figures, graphs, tables etc.
contain several flaws.
Results are enumerated
understandably and correctly,
and are connected to the
research questions /
hypothesis. Text, figures,
graphs, tables, etc. are
appropriate and show few
flaws.
Results are presented correctly
and efficiently. Text, figures,
graphs, tables etc. are linked
to the goals of the research
questions / hypothesis in a
logical way. Text, figures,
graphs, tables, etc. are
appropriate and correct..
Results are presented
flawlessly and efficiently, with
a clear storyline connecting
the various results. Text,
figures, graphs, tables etc. are
well-chosen or original, and
efficiently guide the reader to
understand what results were
achieved in relation to the
research questions /
2.3 Description and choice of methods and processing of information/data
2.2 Theoretical underpinning of goals and framework
1.7 Execution of research
2.4 Presentation of data and results
2. Research report (50%)
2.1 Context, goals and delineation of research/project
date: 28/06/2022 page 2
Rubric - MSc-thesis
version: 4.0 (source: thesisinternship-rubric-v4.0_20220628.xlsm)
Criterion and subcriterion
Unacceptable Insufficient
Needs
improvement
Just sufficient
Ample
Good
Very
good
Exemplary Points of
excellence
Grade: 2
3
Grade: 4
5
Grade: 6
7
Grade: 8
9
Grade: 10
Critical evaluation of
own research
No reflection on the results of
the research, or discussion
only touches invalid, trivial or
overly general points of
criticism.
Student identifies only some
points of weakness in the
research or weaknesses which
are in reality irrelevant or non-
existent.
Student indicates weaknesses
in the research, but impacts on
the conclusions are not
weighed relative to each
other.
Student indicates all
weaknesses and strengths in
the research, evaluates their
impacts on the conclusions,
and weighs their impact on
the conclusions relative to
each other. Furthermore,
(better) alternatives for the
methods used are indicated.
Student indicates both
strengths and weaknesses in
the research, evaluates their
impacts on the conclusions
and weighs and weighs their
impact on the conclusions
relative to each other.
Furthermore,
original/innovative (better)
alternatives for the methods
used are specified.
Confrontation with
literature
No confrontation with existing
literature.
Only marginal confrontation
vis-a-vis existing literature, or
confrontation with irrelevant
existing literature.
Only most obvious conflicts
and correspondences with
existing literature are
identified. The value of the
study is described, but it is not
related to existing research.
Results are confronted with
existing literature and a
distinction is made between
minor and major conflicts and
correspondences.
The added value of the
research relative to existing
literature is identified and
weighed.
Results are critically
confronted with existing
literature. and distinction is
made between minor and
major conflicts or
correspondences. The relative
weight of own results and
existing literature is assessed.
The contribution of his work to
the development of scientific
concepts is specified.
Conclusions No link between research
questions / hypothesis and the
results plus conclusions.
Conclusions merely repeat
results, or conclusions are not
substantiated by results, or
conclusions only address part
of the research questions /
hypothesis.
Conclusions are linked to the
research questions /
hypothesis, but not all
research questions /
hypothesis are addressed.
Some conclusions are not
substantiated by results or
merely repeat results.
Clear link between research
questions / hypothesis and
conclusions. All conclusions
substantiated by results.
Conclusions are formulated
exact..
Conclusions are well-linked to
all research questions /
hypothesis and substantiated
by results. Conclusions are
formulated exact and concise
and the line of argumentation
is clear, logical and convincing.
Conclusions address
knowledge gaps, and proposal
for future research is included.
Recommendations No recommendations given. Recommendations are trivial. Some recommendations are
given, but the link of those to
the conclusions is not always
clear.
Recommendations are to-the-
point, well-linked to the
conclusions and original.
Recommendations are to-the-
point, well-linked to the
conclusions, original and are
extensive enough to serve as
project description for a new
MSc-thesis project.
Structure Document is badly structured.
In many cases information
appears in wrong locations.
Level of detail is inappropriate
throughout..
Paragraph structure is illogical
and inhibits correct
understanding of the text.
Main structure is correct, but
lower level hierarchy and
ordering is illogical. Some
sections have
overlapping functions leading
to ambiguity in placement of
information. Level of detail
varies widely (information
missing, or irrelevant
information given).
Structure within paragraphs
and transition between
paragraphs are often unclear
or illogical.
Main structure is correct,
placement of material in
different chapters is somewhat
illogical in some places. Level
of detail could be improved
in some places (irrelevant
information given).
Most paragraphs have a clear
function. Transitions between
paragraphs are predominantly
clear and logical.
Errors in structure do not
inhibit correct understanding.
Main structure is correct ,
chapters and sections have a
clear and unique function.
Hierarchy of sections is
correct. Ordering of sections is
logical. All information occurs
at the correct place. Level of
detail is appropriate.
Paragraphs fulfil a specific
function. Transitions between
paragraphs are clear and
logical.
Well-structured, and clear and
concise throughout. Very
readable report where the
structure helps to convey the
storyline of the report ;
structure, formulation and
style facilitate understanding
of the report.
Paragraphs each fulfil a
specific function, have a clear
argumentation. Transitions
between paragraphs are clear
and logical; creating a clear
line of argumentation.
Fluency of writing Formulations in the text are
often incorrect/inexact
inhibiting a correct
interpretation of the text.
Many spelling/grammar errors;
inhibiting correct
understanding of the text.
Vagueness and/or inexactness
in wording affect the
interpretation of the text.
sometimes inhibiting correct
understanding of the text.
Formulations in the text are
ambiguous in some places but
this does not inhibit a correct
interpretation of the text.
Spelling/grammar errors are
rare, and do not inhibit correct
understanding of the text.
Formulations in text are clear
and exact, as well as concise.
No spelling/grammar errors
and readability of text is good.
Textual quality of document is
such that it could be
acceptable for a scientific or
professional journal.
No spelling/grammar errors;
optimal use of grammar
resulting in highly readable
text.
Citing and referencing No literature cited or no
proper reference list.
Reference list lacks
information for many sources
and/or literature is not or
incorrectly referenced in the
text.
Reference list contains
literature used, but either
referencing in text contains
some errors, or information
about sources is incomplete or
incorrect in some cases.
Correct style of referencing in
the text as well as in the
reference list. Style is applied
consistently throughout. All
sources are traceable.
Correct style of referencing in
the text as well as in the
reference list. Style is applied
consistently throughout. All
sources are traceable. Style is
appropriate for the type of
document and the field of
study.
2.7 Writing skills
2.6 Clarity and justification of conclusions
2.5 Evaluation of results
date: 28/06/2022 page 3
Rubric - MSc-thesis
version: 4.0 (source: thesisinternship-rubric-v4.0_20220628.xlsm)
Criterion and subcriterion
Unacceptable Insufficient
Needs
improvement
Just sufficient
Ample
Good
Very
good
Exemplary Points of
excellence
Grade: 2
3
Grade: 4
5
Grade: 6
7
Grade: 8
9
Grade: 10
Presentation of data
and results
Based on what is presented
the audience is not able to
understand what results were
achieved.
Results or their connection to
the research questions /
hypothesis are unclear. Text,
figures, graphs, tables etc.,
flaws.
Results are enumerated
understandably and correctly,
and are connected to the
research questions /
hypothesis. Text, figures,
graphs, tables, etc., and how
they are explained by the
student, are mostly
appropriate and show few
Results are presented correctly
and efficiently, and are clearly
linked to the research
questions / hypothesis. Text.
figures, graphs, tables, etc.,
and how they are explained by
the student, are appropriate
and correct.
Results are presented
flawlessly. Text, figures,
graphs, tables etc., in
combination with students
explanation, efficiently guide
the audience to understand
what results were achieved in
relation to the research
questions / hypothesis.
Clarity and
justification of
conclusions
Student provides no link
between goals, results and
conclusions.
Student presents no clear
conclusions, merely repeats
results or does not
substantiate conclusions by
results, or only addresses part
of the research questions /
hypothesis.
Student links conclusions to
the research questions /
hypothesis but does not
address all research questions
/ hypothesis. Some
conclusions are not
substantiated by results or
Student makes clear links
between all research
questions / hypothesis and
conclusion and substantiates
all conclusions by results.
Formulates conclusions exact.
Conclusions are well-linked to
all research questions /
hypothesis and substantiated
by results. Conclusions are
formulated exact and concise
and the line of argumentation
is clear, logical and convincing,
Ability to respond to
questions
Student is not able to answer
questions.
Student is able to answer only
the simplest questions.
Student answers informative
questions well, but has
difficulty to deal with in-depth
questions.
Student answers both
informative questions and in-
depth questions well.
Student answers both
informative questions and in-
depth questions excellently.
Answers are appropriate, clear
and to-the-point and such that
they enlighten the audience .
Answers are logically and
smoothly linked to the
presentation or previous
questions.
Targeted at audience Unsuited for the intended
public or intended purpose.
At some points a bit off target;
makes it difficult for the
audience to follow.
Intended public taken into
account, but at some points
level of detail is inappropriate
for intended audience (too
much or too little).
Targeted to the intended
public (language, depth,
length); appropriate for the
intended purpose.
Enticing and purposeful
throughout, facilitating
communication of the main
messages to the audience.
Structure of
presentation
Presentation is chaotic. Presentation has unclear
structure or lay-out.
Presentation is structured,
though the audience gets lost
in some places.
Presentation has a clear
structure, is concise and to-the-
point. Good separation
between main message and
side-steps.
Presentation is very well
structured, is concise and to-
the-point. Good separation
between main message and
side-steps. Line of
argumentation is clear, logical
and convincing throughout
Voice and poise Presented in such a way that
the majority of audience could
not follow.
Presentation is uninspired
and/or monotonous and/or
student reads from slides;
attention of audience not
captured.
Presentation mostly clear, but
at some moments uninspired
and/or monotonous and/or
unclearly spoken. At those
moments attention of
audience is lost.. Student has
trouble recovering from
mistakes.
Inspired, lively presentation,
clearly spoken. Student
recovers well from any small
mistake.
Lively and relaxed though
concentrated presentation.
Clearly spoken in such a way
that it keeps audience’s
attention. Smooth without
errors.
Defence Student is not able to
defend/discuss their
research/project and report.
Student has difficulty to
explain the subject matter of
the research/project and
report.
Student defends their
research.
Student engages in a
discussion about the contents
of the research and relevant
current knowledge.
Student engages in a lively and
in-depth discussion about the
contents of the research and
relevant current knowledge
and contexts.
Contents and context Student does not master the
contents.
Student limits theirselves in
the discussion to own data,
and/or repeatedly
demonstrates
misunderstanding of own
research.
Student knows most of the
contents of the work. Student
has difficulty to place it in it
scientific, societal or practical
context.
Student masters the contents
of the work and is able to
place it in scientific, societal or
practical context.
Student masters the contents
of the work and beyond.
Student pro-actively places it
in its scientific, societal and
practical context, both narrow
and wide.
Version: 4.0
4.1 Defence of the MSc-thesis
3.1 Content of presentation (note: relative to the rubric of 2021/2022, this criterion combines part of criterion 3.2 + criterion 3.3 and 3.4)
Major number (4): indicates version of contents
Minor number (0): indicates technical or layout changes
4. Oral defence (5%)
3. Oral presentation (5%)
3.2 Presentation skills (note: relative to the rubric of 2021/2022, this criterion combines criterion 3.1 + part of criterion 3.2)
date: 28/06/2022 page 4