http://www.law.kuleuven.be/onderwijs/studentenportaal/curriculum/rechten/master/VerdedigingMasterscriptie_RichtsnoerBeoordelingJury.pdf

DEFENCE AND ASSESSMENT OF THE MASTER’S THESIS ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR EXAMINERS Approved by the Programme Committee on 12 May 2009. Updated by the policy adviser in April 2011 In May or June, the student defends his/her Master’s thesis before an examination committee consisting of the supervisor, the reader and the chair. At the start of the defence, the student is given the opportunity to briefly present the Master’s thesis (max. 5-10 mins). Next, the members of the examination committee comment on the thesis and ask critical questions, to which the student responds. (max. 15-20 mins). The examination committee then determines the grade for the thesis. The student is not expected to present the entire thesis. It is also not possible for him/her to use projection software. The Master’s thesis is assessed by the supervisor and the reader in close consultation. If necessary, the chair strives to achieve consensus. If the members of the examination committee are unable to achieve consensus, the final mark is the average of the separate marks awarded by the three examiners. These three marks carry equal weight in the final grade awarded to the Master's thesis. The assessment criteria below, agreed on by the Programme Committee, should serve as a guideline in assessing the thesis. Completing the assessment grid may be useful for the examiners, also in view of possible disputes, but its use is not compulsory. In drawing up these guidelines, it was a conscious choice not to determine the relative weight of the various criteria. Obviously, the questions under C (and D) carry greater weight. It is suggested that examiners should complete sections A to D while reading the thesis; E only needs to be assessed by the supervisor. As only F needs to be completed during the defence, this should enable the examiners to quickly reach a decision on a final mark.

ASSESSMENT GRID NAME OF STUDENT: THESIS TITLE: COURSE NUMBER (SERIES): NAME AND ROLE (S, R, C) OF EXAMINER: A) FORMATTING

ASSESSMENT - SPECIAL COMMENTS (+/-)

Did the student meet the formatting requirements? http://www.law.kuleuven.be/onderwijs/studentenpor taal/curriculum/rechten/master/masterproef#section-9

Have the references been made in a consistent way? B) LANGUAGE

Language and writing style: is the language used sufficiently clear, fluent, concise and vivid?

Havethe ideas and problems been expressed in legal terms?

Is the legal terminology correct?

Is the spelling correct?

C) CONTENT

1) Research question and methodology

Is the research question legally relevant?

Is the research question original?

Does the student manage to state the problem clearly and unambiguously, and to convey the relevance of the research to non-specialist readers?

Did the student select and apply an adequate methodology for the research questions?

Does the student explicitly state the criteria used when making critical judgements?

Have the choices made in the research process (sources, research methodology, …) been sufficiently justified? Did the student display a sufficient respect for research ethics (e.g. use of the information collected; no wrong, misleading or selective quotations,…)

2) Design and structure

Are the design and the structure logical (in view of the research question, research methodology; guiding principles)?

Have the applied concepts and choices with regard to structure been clearly explained?

Is the conclusion linked to the research question?

3) Content

Have the sources been analyzed in an analytical and synthetic manner?

Does the student write in a sufficiently concise manner? (adequate depth, but without superfluous passages)?

Are there no (substantial) errors?

Does the student show sufficient creativity?

Has the right balance been struck between a factual description and the student’s own analyses and insights?

Does the student manage to situate the research in a wider context; is he/she able to generalize or suggest directions for further research?

Has the research question been answered?

4) Critical skills

Does the student display a personal motivation/opinion (clearly distinguished from other opinions?)

Does the student demonstrate critical reflection upon sources and methods?

Has the student developped a well-reasoned personal position?

D) SOURCES

Does the student refer to a sufficient number of sources?

Are the sources relevant and of a sufficient quality (i.e. appropriate for answering the research question)?

Did the student engage in an exhaustive examination of sources, if feasible; if not, can the selection applied be justified?

E) PROCESS AND AUTONOMY

NOTE: To be assessed by the supervisor

Did the student display a sense of initiative, i.e. did her/she not remain passive?

Did the student establish a clear work plan and did he/she manage to stick to it?

Was the student well-organised in the research process?

Did the student come up with creative solutions to any problems he/she encountered?

Did the student show a good balance between working autonomously and following advice?

F) ORAL PRESENTATION AND DEFENCE (NOTE: = is also a plagiarism check)

NOTE: Carries little weight, can raise or lower marginal grades by max. 1 or 2 points

Did the student give a good oral presentation? (posture, language use and articulation, eye contact, timing, …)

Was he/she able to discuss aspects of the research (e.g. justify choices made, demonstrate relevance, highlight key points,…)