MSc research

1

Master’s programmes Earth Sciences 2 3

MSc research 4 5

GEO4-1520 6

Objective 7

The MSc research represents the culmination of the Earth Sciences Master’s 8 programmes. When conducting MSc research, the student demonstrates skills to 9 pursue independent research and shows advanced knowledge in the field of the 10 MSc programmes. The student demonstrates the capability to apply and to 11 integrate advanced knowledge in order to interpret scientific results and to 12 answer research questions. Performing MSc research includes a critical study of 13 the relevant scientific literature, and application of the gathered information to 14 accomplish the research objectives. The MSc research is mandatory for all 15 students and encompasses a credit load of at least 30 ECTS and a maximum of 16 45 ECTS. The allocated number of ECTS should be a multiple of 7.5 (e.g. 30, 17 37.5, or 45 ECTS). The difference in duration should reflect the difference in 18 working time required for establishing the data base for the project and not be 19 associated with different profundity. This implies that the same assessment 20 criteria apply for MSc theses irrespective of duration. The MSc research 21 encompasses a written report (MSc thesis) and an oral presentation, both 22 obligatory in English, which complete the independent research assignment of the 23 Earth Sciences Master’s programmes. The thesis should – in principle – contain 24 material of publishable quality. 25 26

Pre-requisites 27

The pre-requisites follow the rules and regulations of the Master’s programme 28 Earth Sciences and guarantee a competent starting level for the student on the 29 aspects of research capabilities and general and specialist knowledge. 30 31 To start with MSc research a student has to obtain at least 30 ECTS of theoretical 32 first year MSc courses (GEO4-…) from the relevant programme. Note that the 33 total of 30 ECTS mentioned above is only the minimum requirement for starting 34 the MSc research. At least 45 ECTS from theoretical courses are required for 35 receiving the MSc degree. Usually, the student has completed more theoretical 36 courses within his/her personal programme, established earlier in consultation 37 with the programme leader and after authorization by the Board of Examiners. 38

39

Procedure and content 40 41 There are different ways to find an MSc project. MSc projects supervised by staff 42 from the Department of Physical Geography are published in February. Students 43 can apply for these projects following the instructions on the document. For 44 projects at the Department of Earth Sciences, students are encouraged to take 45 the initiative in talking to the academic staff members about possible research 46 topics. 47 48 The MSc thesis is an individual product that is accomplished by a single student 49 under supervision of a staff member. MSc Research projects can be done in 50 collaboration with other students, but only under the condition that each student 51 works on the basis of an individual problem statement and that the individual 52 performance (and individual thesis) of each student can be properly judged by 53 the supervisor. Together with a thesis supervisor, the student selects a suitable 54 topic of interest that fits within, or has strong links with, one of the Earth 55 Sciences programmes. The topic could be theoretical or practical, could include 56 fieldwork and/or lab-work and/or computer-based simulation/modelling. The 57 Graduate School of Geosciences does not provide any financial compensation for 58 the research components: costs (e.g. fieldwork or laboratory analyses) are in 59 principle for the committed research group. For all MSc thesis projects, a 60 permanent member of the scientific staff of the department of Earth Sciences or 61 Physical Geography is responsible for the supervision and research assessment, 62 but postdocs and PhD-students may be involved in the daily supervision. 63 64 Before starting an MSc project, the planning has to be approved by the Board 65 of Examiners. The MSc proposal has to contain: 66

Personal data of the MSc student (name, student number, e-mail, 67 telephone number) 68

Title of the project 69 Name of the first supervisor, who is part-time or fulltime permanent staff 70

member of the department of Earth Sciences or Physical Geography. 71 The name of a second supervisor (if involved in conducting the project) 72

or a second reviewer (if only involved in the assessment of the project). If 73 the project involves a 2nd supervisor from another faculty at Utrecht 74 University the relative contribution of the 2nd supervisor (in %) has to be 75 indicated in the proposal. 76

Number of ECTS 77 Research plan 78

The research plan should include a research objective, research questions, 79 and the methodology. The plan should not exceed 1000 words. 80

Time planning of the MSc project 81 Start and finish date are indicated in the time planning. 82 The time planning has to be consistent with the number of ECTS; 1 week 83 with 40 working hours corresponds to 1.43 ECTS. The length of the project 84 has to be planned in a way that public holidays are excluded in the 85 calculation of the total number of working hours. 86 The time planning has to include meetings with the supervisor(s) and should 87 indicate if the supervisor is not accessible for longer time periods. 88 Milestones are defined in the time planning, which can be used to evaluate 89 the progress of the MSc project e.g. accomplishment of the required data 90 set, handing in of the first draft version of the MSc thesis, etc. 91

No-go criteria, which define the minimum progress a student has to 92 achieve within about 1/3 of the duration of the thesis. After this period, a 93 meeting with the supervisor is scheduled and the progress of the student is 94 evaluated in view of its no-go criteria. If the student fails to meet these 95

criteria, the supervisor can decide that the MSc project is discontinued, 96 implying that the student has to start a new MSc project. 97

98 In case that the MSc project involves fieldwork, the proposal also includes the 99 signed Declaration regarding safety and behavior during excursions and 100 fieldwork. The form and the related safety regulations and guidelines can be 101 requested from the teaching institute ([email protected]). Note that assessing the 102 risks of the planned MSc fieldwork and discussing these risks with the student is 103 the task of the supervisor and part of the safety procedure. 104 105 The proposal has to be signed by the student, the first supervisor, and the second 106 supervisor or reviewer. The signed proposal has to be sent to the Board of 107 Examiners. A general form of the proposal can be found at the end of the 108 guideline. 109

During the MSc project, it is the student’s and supervisor’s responsibility to 110 fulfill the commitments agreed on in the MSc proposal and to ensure the progress 111 of the project as planned. A delay in finalizing the MSc project of more than four 112 weeks after the intended ending date has to be reported and justified by the 113 student to the Board of Examiners. A request of postponing the date of 114 completion has to be supported by the supervisor and has to include an updated 115 time planning. The request has to be approved by the Board of Examiners. The 116 Board of Examiners can disapprove the request if the delay is solely caused by 117 the student himself. The Board of Examiners has to be informed at least at the 118 date of completion as indicated in the time planning. Delayed completion of 119 the MSc thesis without approval by the Board of Examiners can lead to its 120 rejection. 121

At the end of the MSc project, the student presents his/her results in a public 122 oral presentation, which contributes to the final grade of the MSc thesis project. 123 The student is required to upload a digital version of the thesis into the Igitur 124 archive. The thesis will only become public on Igitur or NARCIS (the national 125 database) after approval by the Board of Examiners, and if there is no formal 126 objection by the student, supervisor or any participating organization. 127

After sufficient feedback and discussion, the supervisor grades the MSc thesis 128 project. The final assessment must include the approval of a second person. This 129 person is either a second supervisor involved in the project or a member of the 130 permanent staff of the Graduate School of Geosciences. The evaluation of the 131 thesis will be based on the MSc Thesis Rubric Earth Sciences. The Rubric can be 132 requested from the teaching institute ([email protected]). The Rubric includes 133 instructions how the grade of the MSc thesis project is determined. 134

The Rubric, which also functions as an evaluation form, has to be signed by the 135 student, the supervisor, and a 2nd reviewer/supervisor and sent to Student 136 Administration (Studiepunt) together with the statement of originality for final 137 approval. 138 139 A final mark of 8.5 or higher will only be approved by the Board of Examiners 140 if it is supported by a third reviewer. This third reviewer a)should be an expert in 141 the field of research covered by the thesis; b) should not have been involved in 142 any way in the graduation project and/or writing stage; c) may be a university 143 lecturer from outside Utrecht University; d) is expected to provide a short written 144 statement. In this statement the 3rd reviewer declares that the written 145 argumentation in the evaluation form justifies the exceptional high mark of ≥ 8.5, 146 and illustrates that the thesis belongs to the top 15% of the Earth Sciences MSc 147 theses at Utrecht University. It is the task of the main supervisor to request for 148 this statement and to add this to the standard thesis assessment form. 149

mailto:[email protected]

150 151 Author’s rights 152 Information about the author rights of theses published in the digital Igitur 153 archive can be found on the Igitur website. 154 155 156 Version: 21 November 2014 157 158 Last three amendments: 159 160 21 November 2014 161 162 Line 110 and following: a tolerance period for finalizing the MSc project has been 163 included. 164 Line 122 and following: 165 The MSc thesis Rubric Earth Sciences is used for the evaluation of the thesis. 166 Several editorial changes have been performed. 167 168 25 March 2014 169 170 Line 7ff: allocated number of ECTS should be a multiple of 7.5 (e.g. 30, 37.5, or 171 45 ECTS). Same criteria apply for evaluating the length of the thesis irrespective 172 of length. 173 Line 37ff:course Preparation MSc Research in Physical Geography (GEO4-4407) is 174 not required any more. 175 Line 137: evaluation form has to be submitted to Student Administration and not 176 to Board of Examiners. 177 178 179 180 18 July 2013 181 182 Line 17: maximum 45 ECTS for MSc project 183 184 185

Proposal Msc. Research GEO4-1520

Name:

Student number:

e-mail:

telephone (optional):

1st supervisor:

2nd supervisor:

Credits:

Title:

Research Plan

Introduction

Objectives and Research Questions

Methods

Schedule

Date / Period Activity / Milestone

No-go criteria

Signatures

Student 1st Supervisor 2nd Supervisor

Statement of originality of the MSc thesis

I declare that:

1. this is an original report, which is entirely my own work,

2. where I have made use of the ideas of other writers, I have acknowledged the

source in all instances,

3. where I have used any diagram or visuals I have acknowledged the source in

all instances,

4. this report has not and will not be submitted elsewhere for academic

assessment in any other academic course.

Student data:

Name:

Registration number:

Date:

Signature:

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF GEOSCIENCES EARTH SCIENCES MASTER’S THESIS RUBRIC |Instructions

The master’s thesis rubric consists of two parts: the Rubric (Word file) and the Rubric Support Sheet (Excel file). The Rubric will also be handed over to the students. The Rubric Support Sheet is only meant as an aid for supervisors in determining the final grade and should not be presented to the student.

Mind you! Both files are secured and only designated cells can be filled in.

The Rubric has to be signed by the student, the first reviewer (usually the first supervisor), and a 2nd reviewer. It then has to be send to Student Administration (Studiepunt), together with the statement of originality for final approval. For the rules regarding the involvement of a third reviewer in case of a grade ≥8.5, please see the separate document “Guidelines MSc thesis Earth Sciences”.

Rubric

- For each criterion, indicate the most appropriate description with an x in one of the boxes. - Please fill in only one box in every row. - If you assess the quality of a criterion as unacceptably low, please use your own words to

substantiate this lack of quality in the left-hand column ‘Unacceptable < 4.0’. - The consequence of one score ‘Unacceptable’ in the final assessment is a FAIL for the thesis

project, no repair possible. - The score ‘Insufficient’ in one or more criteria can be compensated by a higher score in

other criteria. - In case of a final grade below 5.5 but higher than 4.0, the quality of the thesis is insufficient,

but one chance to repair will be offered. The supervisor determines how the insufficient performance has to be emended. The amendment has to be done within 4 weeks after the evaluation. When the amendment is sufficient, the final grade of the thesis will be 6.0.

Rubric Support Sheet

- On the basis of the boxes ticked in the Rubric and your relative weighting of the various criteria, the Rubric Support Sheet provides a range in which the final grade should fall.

- The criteria of the Rubric match the criteria in the Excel sheet. - Only fill in one cell per row; the sheet gives a warning in case more than one cell is filled in. - The main categories Thesis – Process – Presentation have fixed relative weights. - The weighting of each criterion can be adjusted in the range 1 – 1.5 – 2 – 2.5, according to

your own judgment; the sheet takes these weights into account in calculating the grades. - The grading per criterion results into values Low-Mean-High. In the Option column on the

right, you can fill in a grade per criterion, deciding yourself whether you prefer the Low, Mean or High value, or even a value in between.

FACULTY OF GEOSCIENCES EARTH SCIENCES

MASTER’S THESIS RUBRIC

Course Code GEO4- Click here to enter text.

Credits Click here to enter text. EC

Student Name Click here to enter text.

Student Number Click here to enter text.

Title of Thesis / Report Click here to enter text.

Master’s Programme Click here to enter text.

Name(s) of Internal Supervisor(s) Click here to enter text.

Host Organisation (if applicable)

Name of organisation Click here to enter text.

Country Click here to enter text.

Period From Click here to enter text. Until Click here to enter text.

Name(s) of External Supervisor(s) Click here to enter text.

Mark for Thesis 70% Click here to enter text.

Final Mark Click here to enter text. Mark for Process 20% Click here to enter text.

Mark for Presentation 10% Click here to enter text.

Date 23-7-2014

Name of First Reviewer Click here to enter text. Signature

Name of Second Reviewer Click here to enter text. Signature

Name of Third Reviewer Click here to enter text. Signature

Faculty of Geosciences | Earth Sciences | Master’s Thesis Rubric

2

Thesis 70% (1/4)

Unacceptable (< 4.0)

Insufficient (4.0-5.4)

Acceptable (5.5-6.4)

Satisfactory (6.5-7.4)

Good (7.5-8.4)

Excellent (8.5 -10)

Abstract Click here to enter text.

The abstract does not properly describe the problem, and/or research method and/or results.

The abstract describes the problem, research method and results at an elementary level.

The abstract describes the problem, research method and results in a concise and easy to read manner.

The abstract describes the problem, research method and results in a concise and easy to read manner.

Click here to enter text.

The abstract is representative of the thesis content.

The abstract is representative of the thesis content, can be read and understood independently, and serves as an appealing invitation to read the thesis.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Background: theory /

context / regional setting / previous work


The background presented to introduce the research topic is incomplete and/or partly incorrect.

The background presented is limited but sufficient to introduce the research topic.

The background presented is extensive and introduces the research topic well.

The background presented is extensive and introduces the research topic well.


Relevant literature for the thesis research is not discussed.

The literature discussed is relevant.

The literature discussed is relevant and comprehensive.

The literature discussed is relevant and comprehensive. The background is presented in such a way that it gives new insights.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Problem definition

and research question(s) /

aim(s)


The problem definition, and research question(s) /aim(s) are missing or not clearly stated, and/or are not convincingly related to the background presented.

The problem definition, and research question(s) /aim(s) are given at an elementary level. They are linked with the background presented.

The problem definition, and research question(s)/aim(s) are clearly and coherently formulated. They logically follow from the background presented.

The problem definition, and research question(s)/aim(s) are clearly and coherently formulated. They logically follow from the background presented, and convincingly demonstrate a knowledge gap in the current literature/research area.


☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


3

(2/4) Unacceptable

(< 4.0) Insufficient

(4.0-5.4) Acceptable

(5.5-6.4) Satisfactory

(6.5-7.4) Good

(7.5-8.4) Excellent (8.5 -10)

Method Click here to enter text.

The research method is inaccurately and/or incompletely described; validity, reliability and suitability are not explicitly described.

The research method is described at an elementary level; validity, reliability and suitability are briefly described.

The research method is comprehensively described; validity, reliability and suitability are described in some detail.

The research method is comprehensively described; validity, reliability and suitability are described in detail.


Justification for the selected method is missing, insufficient and/or lacks a link with the research question (s)/aim(s).

Justification for the selected method is given and shows a link with the research question (s)/aim(s).

Justification for the selected method is convincing and shows a clear link with the research question (s)/aim(s).

Justification for the selected method is convincing and shows a clear link with the research question (s)/aim(s). Potential weak points and/or pitfalls of the method are substantiated.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Results Click here to enter text.

The collected (field, model/experimental) data contain obvious mistakes and/or appear not suitable to answer the research question(s)/aim(s).

The collected (field, model/experimental) data are suitable to answer the research question(s)/aim(s).




Presentation of the data (tables, figures, charts) is incoherent, poorly structured and/or careless.

Presentation of the data (tables, figures, charts) is coherent, well-structured and careful.

Presentation of the data (tables, figures, charts) is coherent, well-structured and careful. The quality of the data (precision, accuracy) is explicitly included.

Presentation of the data (tables, figures, charts) is coherent, well-structured and careful. The quality of the data (precision, accuracy) is explicitly included.

All data are presented in a fully objective way; bias towards any interpretation is avoided.

All data are presented in a fully objective way; bias towards any interpretation is avoided.

The presentation of the data is such that the readers directly obtain new insights and are able to define their own line of thinking.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


4

(3/4) Unacceptable




(6.5-7.4) Good

(7.5-8.4) Excellent (8.5 -10)

Discussion Click here to enter text.

Discussion reflects insufficiently on research question(s)/aim(s), methodology and/or on results.

Discussion reflects on research question(s)/aim(s), methodology and/or results.




Individual results are discussed.



Synthesis is provided in view of the research questions.

Synthesis is provided in view of the research questions. Rival explanations are debated.

Insufficient consideration is given to related, published studies.

Proper consideration is given to related, published studies.



Contribution of the project to theory, practice and/or society is mentioned.

Contribution of the project to theory, practice and/or society is discussed in some detail.

Contribution of the project to theory, practice and/or society is well explored.

Limitations of the study are addressed.

Limitations of the study are addressed.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Conclusions Click here to enter text.

Conclusions do not do justice to the content of the thesis research.

Conclusions do justice to the content of the thesis research.




Conclusions do not include an answer to the research question.

Conclusions include an answer to the research question.



Answers to research question(s)/aim(s) are not supported by the methods and/or results presented.

Answers to research question(s)/aim(s) are presented, and match with the method and/or results presented.



Implications for the research field are mentioned.

Implications for the research field are mentioned as well as critical arguments for exclusion of rival explanations.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


5

(4/4) Unacceptable




(6.5-7.4) Good

(7.5-8.4) Excellent (8.5 -10)

Overall quality of writing


Reference list is incomplete or does not comply with standards of research journal(s) .

Reference list is complete and complies with standards of research journal(s) .




Language proficiency is basic, with frequent spelling and grammatical mistakes.

Language proficiency is basic with limited vocabulary, but correct.

Language proficiency is adequate with sufficient variation in vocabulary.

Language proficiency is good; sentences are fluent and logical.

Text is not well structured and difficult to read or understand.

The text contains some minor mistakes in grammar and/or spelling.

The text hardly contains any mistakes in grammar and/or spelling.

Wording is varied, specific and appropriate, inviting further reading.

Text is structured. Text is well-structured, facilitating the understanding of the reader.

Text is well-structured, facilitating the understanding of the reader.

Layout of the final document does not meet standards.

Layout of the final document is consistent.

Layout of the final document is consistent.

Layout of the final document is professional and attractive.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Additional remarks (optional) Click here to enter text.


6

Process 20% (1/2)

Unacceptable (< 4.0)

Insufficient but reparable (4.0-5.4)



Good (7.5-8.4)

Excellent (8.5 -10)

Proposal Click here to enter text.

Research (research questions/aims and methods) was proposed and largely formulated by supervisor.

Research (research questions/aims and methods) was proposed by supervisor and formulated by student.

Research (research questions/aims and methods) was proposed by supervisor, and worked out in detail and formulated by student.

Research (research questions/aims and methods) was proposed in conjunction with supervisor, and worked out in detail and formulated by student.


☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Implementation Click here to enter text.

The work programme was not accomplished due to underperformance of the student.

Work programme was accomplished but with some deviation from the agreed time planning .

The student followed the time planning allowing the project to be completed without delay.

The student followed the time planning allowing the project to be completed without delay.


The student was insufficiently prepared at progress meetings.

The student was sufficiently prepared at progress meetings. Performance of activities could be assessed.

The student was well prepared at progress meetings. Performance and quality of results could be assessed.

The student was well prepared at progress meetings. Performance and quality of results could be assessed. Opportunities were created for scientific discussion.

Student did not fulfil agreements.

Student did not fulfil all agreements but this did not jeopardize the progress.

Student fulfilled the agreements.

Student fulfilled and went beyond the agreements.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Autonomy in applying

methodology


Continuous supervision and support was necessary to enable the student to apply the required techniques and methods.

After an instruction period, the student was able to operate independently and to apply the required techniques and methods.




Student noticed mistakes and/or technical problems in the methods used.

Student noticed mistakes and/or technical problems in the methods used.

Student suggested or independently implemented improvements in the methods.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


7

(2/2)



8

Presentation 10% (1/2)

Unacceptable/ (<4.0)

Insufficient but reparable (4.0-5.4)



Good (7.5-8.4)

Excellent (8.5 -10)

Content Click here to enter text.

Project (research questions/aims, methods, results, discussion, conclusion) was not clearly transferred.

Project (research questions/aims, methods, results, discussion, conclusion) was clearly transferred.




The length of the different parts of the content were balanced and accommodated in the available time frame.

The length of the different parts of the content were balanced and accommodated in the available time frame.

The presentation followed a coherent narrative line which made the content easily comprehensible for the audience.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Presentation skills


Following the presentation was hindered because the student formulated unclearly or used an inappropriate style.

Student formulated clearly and used correct terminology.




Presentation was supported by non-verbal communication skills.

Presentation was supported by non-verbal communication skills.

The student spoke fluently with dynamic voice.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


9

(2/2) Unacceptable

(<4.0) Insufficient but reparable



(6.5-7.4) Good

(7.5-8.4) Excellent (8.5 -10)

Supporting media


Audio-visual media were insufficient, contained mistakes and/or distracted from the storyline.

Audio-visual media were appropriate and the presented material was correct.




Audio-visual media supported the verbal explanations.

Audio-visual media supported the verbal explanations.

Graphics were optimized to improve their readability and to transfer the important aspects.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Questions


Student could not provide answers to questions directly related to the methodology or the research subject.

Student was able to answer questions directly related to the methodology or the research subject.




The answers to the questions were clear and persuasive.

The answers to the questions were clear and persuasive showing that the student is in control of the research project.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


Documents

MSc research