Excie, 9-9-2014, Evaluation Research Master Thesis

Evaluation Research Master Thesis Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University

Name and student number

Title of the thesis

Amount of ects 35 ec

Date of submission first version

Date of submission final version

Date of evaluation

Supervisor

Second reader

Requirements of thesis tutorial and presentation fulfilled?

Yes / No

Embargo (thesis repository) Yes / Yes until… / Public (agreed by student and supervisor)

Please, note that if the thesis does not match the criteria below, it will be returned!!

A: Technical form of the thesis

Are the references correct? Is the bibliography correct and complete? Norm is the faculty standard or an internationally authoritative scientific journal.

Is the general layout correct and clear? Title page, contents, correct use of notes, appendixes. Norm is the faculty standard or an internationally authoritative scientific journal.

Are figures and tables of good quality? Are the captions correct and clear?

Is the thesis written in an academic style; well formulated, with a clear line of argumentation, and to standards of publication in international scientific journals?

B: Organisation of the research

Is the problem definition clear and well founded in the scientific literature? Are the research questions clearly formulated?

Are the approach and methods explained and well-founded?

Is the problem orientation, approach and/or methodology innovative or original?

C: Data analysis

Is the description of the data clear and in line with standards of the research field?

Are the data analysed in depth and in a critical manner? Has the student demonstrated the ability to deal with complex and incomplete data?

Does the analysis and interpretation demonstrate profound and in-depth knowledge of the research field?

Has the student demonstrated the analytical competence to process new data from fieldwork and/or laboratory work?

Has the student demonstrated the ability to

Excie, 9-9-2014, Evaluation Research Master Thesis

transcend the own discipline, applying methods and theories in and from new and multidisciplinary context?

Have the implications of the own research been discussed in terms of ethical and/or social aspects, and from the perspective of current developments in international archaeology?

D: Synthesis / conclusions

Are the conclusions logically consistent, well-supported by the data presented, and discussed in terms of the problem orientation?

Does the student demonstrate the ability to apply methods and theories from and in new and multidisciplinary contexts?

Does the student discuss the implications of the research in terms of current developments in archaeology (theoretical, methodical and/or social)?

Does the research make a real contribution to knowledge and conceptualization in the discipline?

E: Level of independency

Did the student demonstrate the ability to plan, organise and execute the research autonomously (including e.g. fieldwork or laboratory work)?

Did the student execute the research within reasonable time limits?

Did the student demonstrate the ability to work in a research team and within academic networks?

E: Evaluation

Summary of the evaluation and conclusions (=justification of the mark given)

Benchmark = 7, that is: “this thesis is of good quality, more than basic in all aspects; the potential for original research is present, but has not been fully exploited” (See Appendix).

Marks (the total is not the mean of the two consistent parts)

Form: Content:

Total:

Date assessment Signature supervisor

Excie, 9-9-2014, Evaluation Research Master Thesis

Date approval 2nd reader Signature 2nd reader

Date approval examination committee Signature examination committee

Excie, 9-9-2014, Evaluation Research Master Thesis

Excie, 9-9-2014, Evaluation Research Master Thesis

Excie, 9-9-2014, Evaluation Research Master Thesis