A thesis review focuses on three main points. Underneath the main points are sub-points, which are used to evaluate the main points. Every main point is evaluated with a partial grade, that adds to the final grade. A grade for the thesis is based on the combined average of partial grades.
In the first evaluation section, the thesis is examined from the point of view of the commissioner of the work and the professional sector as a whole. Often the choice of topic determines whether the project can develop operations and therefore, service the entire professional field. Identifying development needs in the professional field means that the author must have a curious approach to familiarisation with the professional literature of the field and in networking with the sector. The applicability of the work may be immediate or subsequent: the most important thing is the careful assessment of the usability of the work. Critical evaluation means the ability of the author to reliably assess the significance of the work to the commissioner and to a broader readership. In the best case, the thesis will serve both the concrete objectives as well as increase the knowledge and competence base of the professional sector. Sometimes the product of a thesis may fail, at least in part, but a careful analysis of the causes of the failure may produce valuable information and thereby lead to a successful thesis and final project. The evaluated points are:
Significance of the work to the profession is considered excellent (5) if the choice of the topic is bold, original and future-oriented. Furthermore, a thesis evaluated as excellent offers a good application value for the commissioner and is particularly interesting from the perspective of the entire professional industry. The significance of the work to the profession is considered good (3) if the work is important to the commissioner but the value of the work for the profession remains unclear. The significance of the work to the professional sector is considered satisfactory (1), if the development project is a routine task the usability of which cannot be truly assessed or demonstrated.
This section assesses the ability of the thesis author to perform a demanding task independently and in an original manner. Versatile use of references and other sources of information means that the information is modified instead of simply listed. Good methodological competence is the ability to apply research methods – not just to quote methodology guides. In final projects that emphasise functionality, the author’s ability to use, for example, the final project journals and in general, the ability to produce reliable information through critical evaluation of operations, is evaluated. Compliance with the principles of ethical research is a part of methodological competence. Meaningful development work often requires courage, innovation and determination. Conventionality hardly ever produces surprising information. Establishing the development work on bold operational experiments is the most obvious way to be original, but even more research-based approaches can be original, especially at the stage in which the results of the work are being implemented in the commissioner’s operations. The evaluated points are:
The generation of knowledge and competence is considered excellent (5), if the author has managed to set the different sources of information in dialogue with each other and personal perspective has been established and applied in practical tasks. The production of knowledge and competence is considered good (3) if the sources are relevant and they have been used in a diverse way, but the information is presented in a list-like form rather than modified and applied. In a satisfactory (1) thesis, the written sources remain unconnected with the content, the text is fragmentary, and the objectives of the final project are not clearly defined.
This section evaluates the internal and external functionality of the thesis. It is not only a matter of form, but also usability value of the thesis in working life. Functionality also beans accessibility: all theses must follow the guidelines of the EU’s accessibility directive (2016/2012) about text accessibility. If the accessibility requirements are completely ignored, a work cannot be submitted for evaluation. Instruction for an accessible thesis can be found through this link. The evaluated points are:
A thesis considered excellent (5) is linguistically impeccable, has convincing content, and is structurally reader-friendly. In a good (3) thesis, some flaws in layout and structure are allowed, if the text itself is fluent and written in an expertly manner. In addition, any tables, figures and illustrations are appropriate and neatly formatted. The source references and bibliography have been made with care. A satisfactory (1) thesis work is not very attractive on the outside, the presentation is rigid, and the author clearly has difficulties in writing good expert text.