Heineken 2

Assessment Criteria for MSc Dissertations – Empirical/Valuation Project
General Criteria/
Marker’s
Comments
Introduction Literature Review Empirical/Valuation
Framework and Data
Description
Empirical/Valuation
Analysis
Conclusion Written Communication
(Presentation)
80+
High
Distinction
• -Incisive introduction
• -Comprehensive and
persuasive rationale
• -Clear statement of the
research problem and
associate objectives

-Sources used with
discrimination
-Coherent and entirely
justified conceptual
framework to support the
research undertaken
-Sophisticated use of
examples
-Fully appropriate choice
and application of data
collection methods which
is entirely justified
-Correct sourcing
-Highly original and
creative selection of data
-Strong and broad
evidence of an excellent
level of analysis and use of
appropriate techniques
-Exceptional analysis of
key concepts with very
clear originality and
autonomy
• -Strong original conclusion
• -Extensive evidence of the
ability to critically evaluate
the research results
-Excellent typography and
layout
-Lucid expressions
-Sophisticated vocabulary
-Excellent citation and
bibliography norms
70 – 79.9
Distinction
-Focused introduction
-Subject well justified
-Clear statement of the
research problem and
associate objectives
-A wide range of sources
consulted
-Evidence of a sound
discussion of the literature
relevant to the study
-Good use of examples
– Fully appropriate choice
and application of data
collection methods, well
justified
-Correct sourcing
-Original, well-researched
selection of data
-Critical appraisal and
synthetic analysis
-Excellent analysis of key
concepts demonstrating
independence of thought
and a high level of
intellectual rigour and
consistency
-Conclusion advances
debates
-Extensive evidence of the
ability to critically evaluate
the research results
-Structured appropriately
to the purposes of the
assignment
-Lucid expression with few
flaws
-Good use of vocabulary
-Excellent citation and
bibliography norms
60 – 69.9
Merit
-Clear and thoughtful
introduction
-Subject valid and relevant
-Appropriate selection and
justification of the
methodology adopted
-Well selected range of
sources consulted
-Evidence of a
comprehensive review of
the literature relevant to
the study
-Appropriate examples
-Appropriate choice and
application of data
collection methods which
is also well supported.
– Well – researched
selection of data
-Good analysis of key
concepts
-Development of
conceptual structures and
argument making
consistent use of scholarly
conventions
-Clear conclusions
-Satisfactory evidence of
the ability to critically
evaluate the research
results
-Good typography and
layout
-Good expression
-Appropriate use of
vocabulary
-Few errors of grammar
-Well – structured
Accurate and full citation
and bibliography
50 – 59.9
Pass
-Fair introduction
-Subject has some validity
and relevance
-Rationale present but of
marginal relevance
-A range of sources
consulted
-Indication of a satisfactory
review of the literature
relevant to the study but
with some evident gaps
and omissions
-Limited range of
examples sometimes
inappropriate ones
-Mainly appropriate choice
and application of data
collection methods with
some evidence of
justification
-Some errors and
omissions in sourcing
-Mainly standard range of
data used
-Evidence of a satisfactory
level of analysis and of use
of appropriate techniques
-Satisfactory knowledge of
key concepts, descriptive in
parts but some ability to
synthesize scholarship and
argument.
-Fair conclusions
– Some evidence of
appropriate justification for
critical comment on and
logical development but
incomplete and / or
illogically developed.
-Adequate typography and
layout
-Few serious errors of
grammar;
-Limited vocabulary
-inconsistent citation and
bibliography with
significant omissions
<50
Fail
-Weak introduction
-Descriptive with large
gaps or misses the point
-Minimal range of sources
consulted
-Little attempt to support
any assertions
-Minimal range use of
examples
-Inappropriate choice and
application of data
collection with no
justification
-Narrow or unskilled range
of data used
-Limited knowledge of key
concepts
-Use of scholarly
conventions inconsistent,
largely descriptive with little
synthesis of existing
-Weak conclusions
-Conclusions sketchy or illmatched
-Poor presentation
-Flawed expression
-Inaccurate citation and
gaps in bibliography
scholarship and limited
argument

Get assignment assistance in less than four minutes!

Our Offering

  • 100% Original Papers
  • Plagiarism Reports provided
  • Masters Level Writing
  • Timely Delivery
  • Proofread assignments