Project Plan (M11) and BSc Thesis (M12)

The mission of module 11 is to prepare you for the independent research project in module 12. This preparation includes writing a project plan, conducting a systematic literature review, and reflecting on your personal development.

Hence, this module aims to equip you with a blueprint and academic toolkit to independently complete a bachelor thesis in module 12. Module 11 moves students:

From group work to solo research.
From staff‑driven to self‑driven learning.
From applying known theory to selecting and justifying suitable theory.

Where to find updated information?

Please visit Canvas IEM BSc Thesis Course for the latest information.

Supervisor’s Responsibilities

The seven recommended supervisor-student touch‑points are:

Kick‑off meeting
Problem‑cluster draft
RQ & SLR protocol review
Design & validity discussion
Dry‑run defence
Final submission & booking
Formal defence

Detailed Grading Rubric

Table 1: Assessment rubric (all criteria and score bands).

Criterion	≤ 5	6	7	8	≥ 9
General academic quality	Argument unclear; choices lack motivation; structure confusing; few academic sources.	Basic logic; acceptable structure; ≥ 3 peer-reviewed sources; limited reflection.	Logical flow; ≥ 5 scholarly sources; reflective commentary.	Very coherent narrative; critical theory integration; explicit limitations.	Exceptional rigour; synthesis of competing theories; deep reflexivity about methodology and positionality.
Problem identification	No measurable gap; cause-effect cluster absent or incoherent.	Gap qualitative only; cluster shallow; weak core-problem choice.	Quantified gap; logical cluster; core problem justified on influence and importance.	Fully quantified gap; arrows explained; KPIs linked to core problem and controllability.	Data validate cause links; triangulated evidence; core-problem choice based on cost–benefit rationale.
Problem-solving approach	Steps misaligned with core problem; deliverable vague; scope undefined.	Steps partly motivated; deliverable outlined; scope partial.	Coherent stage diagram; specific deliverable; clear scope.	Excellent logic; risks addressed; tightly scoped; deliverable matches problem.	Innovative, evidence-based approach; contingency plans included; deliverable and scope optimally aligned with client needs.
Research questions	Questions missing or not linked to stages; definitions vague.	Some linkage; questions broad; limited literature gap check.	One-to-one link with stages; questions specific, feasible, researchable.	Sharp focus; literature gap demonstrated for each question.	Innovative, theory-grounded questions with publishable potential; exhaustive justification of necessity.
Research design	Design not linked to questions; variables vague; data and analysis poorly chosen; validity ignored.	Basic design; rudimentary operationalisation; limited validity discussion.	Logical design; variables operationalised; methods well motivated; validity and reliability addressed.	Rigorous design; pilot or pre-test; clear critique of internal, external, and construct validity.	Innovative or mixed methods; exhaustive discussion of limitations and mitigation strategies.
Conceptual framework	Theoretical lens weak; constructs undefined; framework diagram missing.	Basic lens; constructs superficial; simple framework sketch.	Well-motivated lens; clear construct definitions; coherent framework diagram.	Strong theoretical grounding; rich definitions; relationships explained and hypotheses proposed.	Integrates multiple theories; polished model offering deep insight and testable propositions.
Written reporting	Poor structure; referencing inconsistent; frequent language errors.	Adequate structure; minor style issues; language mostly clear.	Clear headings; correct APA 7; fluent writing.	Engaging prose; visuals enhance readability; zero grammar or style errors.	Impeccable academic writing; visuals and cross-references expertly integrated.
Oral defence	Limited grasp of project; unclear slides; weak argumentation; risks unaddressed.	Basic understanding; some argumentation; risks mentioned superficially.	Good command of content; clear explanations; validity and reliability risks acknowledged.	Very confident delivery; persuasive argumentation; insightful discussion of methodological limitations.	Exceptional mastery; convincingly answers probing questions; deep awareness of research choices and implications.