Instructions for the evaluation of project reports, student
research projects, and bachelor’s theses
Principle
The evaluation of project reports, student research projects, and bachelor’s theses is done in
two steps:
1. Step: Schematic Evaluation
2. Step: Explanation of the Evaluation, Review
These two steps are to be carried out with the forms provided. They are, in any case, to be documented in
such a way that an external person or a student can reconstruct the grading using these criteria.
Utilization of a PC is helpful, in particular with the schematic evaluation for determining the
recommended grade using the evaluation score.
These instructions help the reviewer in developing the content of these two review steps as well as in using
the tools on the PC.
Schematic Evaluation
The schematic evaluation is divided into two areas, each of which is evaluated by the reviewer with a score in
several criteria.
Area Criteria Weighting
Content development Technical development 55%
Use of technical knowledge
Application of methods and tools
Practicability of results
Creativity
Economical evaluation
Problem-oriented exposition Independence, initiative 45%
Systematic approach
Documentation
Literature research
Issue: January 2020
1
For each of the criteria there are five verbal performance levels (failed, sufficient, satisfactory, good, very
good), that help the reviewer to assign an adequate score for each criterion.
The following aspects need to be considered in the evaluation of the specific criteria:
Content Development
How was the topic treated (empirically/theoretically/reporting, comparing, evaluating
(literature study)/own investigations, experimental inquiry)? Are results or partial results,
in relation to the problem, reached? Is it, if applicable, shown that the problem is not
Technical solvable? Do the results of the work lead to a clear statement? Are these justified,
development evaluated and critically reflected? Are alternatives shown? Are different solution
approaches analyzed? Is the choice of the solution approach justified? How far has the
state of technology and knowledge been elaborated? Have additional aspects been
worked on?
What technical knowledge does the author show in developing a solution approach?
Use of technical Was theoretical knowledge from his/her studies and from literature implemented or
knowledge applied in practice? How broadly varied are the solution approaches presented? How
technically substantiated is the solution?
Application of Are engineering methods and tools for problem analysis and for finding a solution
methods and consciously chosen, and are they adequately applied, as applicable? Are the methods
tools and tools utilized in a systematic and valid manner?
Can the results be implemented or have the results been implemented in practice? Are
Practicability of
the positive and negative effects of the results described and evaluated? Are difficulties
result in the implementation mentioned and approaches to a solution presented?
Are we looking, in general or in their particular combination, at new results? Are these
sufficiently justified, proven, reliably determined? Have individual solution strategies
Creativity been developed? What is the degree of originality of the solutions proposed? Have
unusual solution approaches been presented? How are known solutions transferred to
new situations?
Is the student able to illustrate the economical benefit of his/her work? Are proposed
Economical
solutions and alternatives not only analyzed and evaluated technically but also
evaluation economically? What are the non-financial benefits of their work?
Issue: January 2020
2
Scientific Work
Are own solutions or solution strategies found? Are own decisions made? Is information
Independence, acquired independently? Are own suggestions made for the approach? Does the student
Initiative identify with the tasks? Can an interest in the work be detected?
Are methods applied systematically? Are priorities applied reasonably? Is there a focus
Systematic on the essential? Are thoughts consistently followed and elaborated? Does a clear
approach structure of the content of the report emerge? Is the task approached in a structured way
(set goals, plan, do, check)?
Is the outline logical and well-balanced? Is the development of thought clear and
reasonably structured? Are the texts concise, precise and comprehensible? Is there a
short, to-the-point and comprehensible summary of the report that is limited to the
Documentation essential? Is the comprehensibility supported by illustrative examples, figures, graphics
and tables? Is the terminology technically correct? Is the written expression
adequate/colloquial/artificial? Are sentence structure, orthography and punctuation
correct? Are company specific terms and terms outside of the subject area explained?
Are all relevant and current sources included in the literature used? How
Literature comprehensively was the literature researched? Are partial problems / aspects of the
research problem also probed by a deep literature search? Are all sources used in the text cited
completely and correctly in the bibliography ?
Were the citations quoted exhaustively discussed and critically thought through? How
completely were the sources evaluated and processed? Were statements supported and
Use of literature further developed by literature cited?
The weighting of the areas is preserved even when the weighting of the criteria is changed, by a change
in the maximal score.
For the criteria there is a standard distribution of the maximal scores (recommended maximal score) that
can be changed by the reviewer in case there are good reasons for this. Depending on the character of a
report it may be sensible that certain criteria deserve a lower weighting or are completely omitted. In
such cases the reasons for changing the maximal scores need to be specifically explained in the review.
