You can use the following grading rubrics to determine the quality of the submitted Literature Thesis. Please note that the relative weights of the different criteria are fixed. For more information on the Literature Thesis, see the [[Literature Thesis Manual]]. To use the rubric, choose the description that most closely matches a description of the work that is being assessed. Note that from sufficient onwards, the higher performance descriptions include meeting the standards of lower levels. The column headers list a qualitative description of the level of work. These descriptors map onto a range of grades. The low end of this range corresponds to only just meeting the norms in the respective column, while the high end corresponds to clearly meeting those norms, but not yet the norms of the subsequent column. For more on the ranges, see the section *Dutch grading system below.* Process is only assessed by the assessor who was closely involved with the writing process (the examiner in case of internal projects, the assessor in case of external projects). The thesis is assessed by both assessors. The final mark consists of the weighted average of process (10%) and thesis (90%). The grade for the thesis is the average of the grades given by the assessor, but please be mindful that the assessors may not allot grade points with a difference of 1 point or more. ## Process | Criterion | Poor | Insufficient | Sufficient | Good | Excellent | | :------------------- | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | | Collaboration (100%) | Collaboration with the supervisor was consistently poor. The student missed multiple deadlines, was unresponsive to feedback, or failed to communicate effectively about progress or obstacles. The supervisor had to repeatedly chase the student for updates or deliverables, significantly impeding the research process. | The student met most deadlines but often required reminders from the supervisor. Communication was minimal or reactive, providing updates only when asked. The student did not proactively seek guidance when facing challenges and often submitted work with little to no prior discussion, leading to inefficient feedback loops. | The student demonstrated reliable and professional collaboration. The student met deadlines and communicated regularly and clearly with the supervisor about progress, questions, and concerns. The student took feedback on board and revised work accordingly. The collaboration was a productive partnership, ensuring a steady and efficient workflow. | All criteria for the previous level are met. In addition, the student was proactive and took ownership of the research process. They anticipated potential problems and came to meetings not just with questions, but with proposed solutions. The student independently identified and pursued relevant tasks, demonstrating accountability and initiative. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student's collaboration with the supervisor was marked by a high level of independence and intellectual curiosity. The student's problem-solving was proactive and creative, often leading to new insights or a more efficient research direction. This level of autonomy is comparable to that of an early-stage doctoral researcher. | ## Thesis | Criterion | Poor (1-4) | Insufficient (4.5 - 5.5) | Sufficient (6 - 7) | Good (7.5 - 8.0) | Excellent (8.5 - 10) | | :-------------------------------------------- | :-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | | Substantiated position (25%) | The thesis lacks a clear position or argument on the research problem. It is primarily a summary of the literature without a unifying point of view. | The thesis takes a position on the research problem, but the justification is weak or inconsistent. The argument relies on a limited selection of evidence and does not adequately address or integrate contradictory findings. The reasoning may contain logical flaws or unsubstantiated assumptions. | The thesis articulates a well-substantiated position on the research problem. The argument is logical and supported by a robust body of evidence from the literature. The student successfully integrates multiple sources to build a coherent case and addresses counterarguments fairly. Reasoning is sound, and key claims are explicitly linked to supporting evidence. | All criteria for the previous level are met. In addition, the thesis presents a nuanced and sophisticated argument. It not only supports its main position but also explicitly acknowledges the limitations of its own argument and the underlying assumptions of its chosen perspective. The position is the result of a thorough and critical comparison of multiple, competing explanations, demonstrating a deep understanding of the topic's complexities. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The substantiated position is original and compelling. It synthesizes existing evidence in a new way. The argument is so persuasive that it has the potential to shift the thinking of the reader and open up new avenues for research. | | Critical thinking (20%) | The thesis summarises literature without any critical evaluation. It presents research findings as established facts without acknowledging their methodological limitations, underlying assumptions, or potential biases. | The thesis includes some critical commentary on the literature, but it is often superficial or inconsistent. It may point out a few obvious limitations (e.g., small sample size) but fails to deeply examine the theoretical assumptions, a study's internal or external validity, or potential biases. | The thesis demonstrates a thorough and systematic critical evaluation of the literature. It effectively identifies and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of key studies, including their methodological limitations (e.g., design, measures, statistical analysis) and theoretical assumptions. The thesis also gives due consideration to contradictory or conflicting findings, providing a balanced and nuanced view of the research landscape. | All criteria for the previous level are met. In addition, the thesis evaluates the underlying assumptions and potential biases of the research, highlighting how these assumptions may shape findings or limit the scope of a study's conclusions. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The thesis's critical analysis reveals previously unstated assumptions in the field. It evaluates existing research and re-frames the debate by introducing a new perspective on the literature's limitations. The analysis is compelling and suggests novel directions for future research. | | Synthesis (20%) | The thesis summarizes findings in a disjointed way, presenting information from different sources as isolated facts without making connections between them. The interdisciplinary implications of the research are not addressed or are entirely absent from the text. | The thesis groups similar research findings together but the synthesis is superficial. The student makes minimal connections between studies and fails to build a cohesive argument from the collective evidence. Interdisciplinary implications are mentioned but not explained or explored in a meaningful way. | The thesis demonstrates a strong ability to synthesize research findings from different studies to create a well-supported argument. It goes beyond simple summary to explain how various findings relate to and build upon each other. The thesis also clearly and explicitly articulates interdisciplinary implications, showing how findings in one field can inform or be explained by another. | All criteria for the previous level are met. In addition, the synthesis weaves together findings from a diverse range of sources to resolve apparent conflicts or reveal insights. The explanation of interdisciplinary implications is not just descriptive but **prescriptive**, suggesting new hypotheses or research directions at the intersection of different disciplines. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The synthesis creates a new conceptual framework or model. This synthesis provides a new lens through which to view the research problem and its interdisciplinary implications, making a significant and original contribution to the field that would be valuable for publication. | | Problem statement (15%) | The problem statement is unclear, absent, or contains significant inaccuracies. There is no clear link to existing literature, and the problem's relevance is not established. It's difficult to understand the core issue the thesis intends to explore. | The problem statement is present but lacks sufficient clarity or a strong foundation in existing literature. While some key concepts are mentioned, the context for their relevance is weak. The problem is not yet fully defined or sufficiently narrowed down for a master's thesis. | The problem statement is clear, focused, and well-supported by a concise review of relevant literature. Key concepts and operational definitions are explained effectively, demonstrating a solid understanding of the current state of knowledge. The problem is arguable and warrants a critical examination of existing research. The scope is appropriate for the time available. | All criteria for the previous level are met. Additionally, the problem statement persuasively articulates the scientific and/or societal value of its resolution. The thesis not only addresses a gap but also explains why filling that gap is important, showing the potential for the work to make a meaningful contribution to the field. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The problem statement defines a novel and highly significant question that, if resolved, would make a groundbreaking contribution to the field. The work has potential for publication in a highly-regarded journal. | | Interdisciplinarity (10%) | The thesis fails to engage with multiple disciplines. It presents the research problem from a single perspective, or it mentions other disciplines without making any meaningful connections. The interdisciplinary nature of the field is not acknowledged. | The thesis demonstrates that the research problem is relevant to more than one discipline (e.g., cognitive psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy). It may briefly outline different approaches or insights from these fields, but it lacks a genuine integration of these perspectives. | The thesis successfully integrates insights from multiple disciplines to address the research problem. It clearly explains how different disciplines provide unique but complementary perspectives, for example, by using neurological evidence to explain a psychological phenomenon or by referring to computational models to ground a philosophical argument. The analysis is coherent and builds a more complete picture than any single discipline could. | All criteria for the previous level are met. In addition, the thesis critically evaluates and reconciles potential tensions or conflicting findings between disciplines. It identifies where different disciplinary approaches might lead to different conclusions and provides a reasoned analysis of these discrepancies, demonstrating a nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the subject. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The thesis leverages the analysis to propose a novel interdisciplinary framework or hypothesis. It clearly identifies unresolved questions and outlines a compelling path for future research that would bridge the remaining gaps, showcasing a level of insight and originality comparable to publishable work. | | Collecting literature (5%) | The literature search process is not evident. Sources are either too few, of low academic quality (e.g., non-peer-reviewed articles, popular press), or not clearly relevant to the problem statement. The thesis fails to demonstrate a foundational understanding of the key literature in the field. | The thesis uses a sufficient number of scholarly sources, and most are relevant. However, the search process is not systematic. Important or foundational works may be missing, and the selection of sources appears unsystematic or based on a limited scope. The thesis may show a basic understanding of the literature but not a comprehensive one. | The thesis uses a comprehensive and relevant set of scholarly sources. A systematic search process is evident, as seen in the selection of key review articles, seminal papers, and up-to-date research. Sources are of high academic quality and are appropriately categorized and used to build a coherent line of thought. The thesis demonstrates a solid understanding of the most relevant and important findings in the field. | All criteria for the previous level are met. In addition, the thesis shows an ability to identify and incorporate sources from a variety of related disciplines (e.g., psychology, computer science, linguistics) that are relevant to the problem statement. This interdisciplinary approach not only strengthens the argument but also demonstrates a sophisticated, thorough, and purposeful search strategy. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The literature collection is not only comprehensive and interdisciplinary but also shows awareness of potential biases or gaps within the existing literature. The student has identified and addressed these limitations in their collection, showing a nuanced understanding of the field. | | Disclosure and transparency of GenAI use (5%) | No statement on GenAI is present. | A statement on GenAI use is present, but it lacks specificity. It may mention the use of GenAI generally without identifying specific tools, or it provides a list of tools without clear indication of _how_ or _for what purpose_ they were used in the research or writing process. Does not address potential limitations or verification. | A clear statement on GenAI use is present, accurately listing the specific GenAI tools and version (e.g., ChatGPT-5, Midjourney v5.2, UvA AI Chat) and models. It details the _specific purposes_ for which each tool was employed (e.g., "to refine my problem statement", "to assist with grammatical editing and phrasing" or "to create an argumentative structure based on my findings"). The statement may briefly acknowledge the need for human oversight but does not elaborate on verification. | A comprehensive statement on GenAI use is present, providing precise details on: <br>- Tools and Versions: Specific GenAI tools (including version numbers and models). <br>- Purpose and Scope: Detailed explanation of _how_ and _for what specific tasks_ each tool was used. <br>- Human Oversight & Verification: Explicitly describes the process of critical evaluation, but may lack depth in explaining the _methods_ of verification. It does not consistently address limitations or provide prompts. | A comprehensive and transparent statement on GenAI use is present, providing precise details on: <br>- Tools and Versions: Specific GenAI tools (including version numbers and models) <br>- Purpose and Scope: Detailed explanation of _how_ and _for what specific tasks_ each tool was used.<br>- Human Oversight & Verification: Explicitly describes the process of critical evaluation and the limitations of specific GenAI use.<br>- Prompts (optional but encouraged for key uses): For significant contributions by GenAI, provides examples of prompts used to generate outputs in an appendix. | # Dutch grading system The Dutch grading system scores on a 1-10 scale, with 6 being the minimum pass mark. See: [[Grading System]]. The qualitative descriptors (Poor, Insufficient, Sufficient, etc.) from the rubric map onto multiple possible numerical values. Which of these values is a proper assessment of the student's work is at the discretion of the grader - a student might only just meet the norms in the column (low end of the range) or perhaps might just fall short of the norms in the subsequent column (high end of the range). Note that grades can be provided up to a precision of half points. | Qualitative descriptor | Grade range (inclusive) | | :--------------------- | ----------------------- | | Poor | 1 - 4 | | Insufficient | 4.5 - 5.5 | | Sufficient | 6 - 7 | | Good | 7.5 - 8 | | Excellent | 8.5 - 10 | Works that score higher than 8.0 are remarkable. The grade 9 is reserved for the top 3% of students, while only the top 0.5% scores 10. # Disclosure of GenAI use The above rubrics were created with the help of GenAI (UvA AI Chat, using ``gpt-3.5-turbo``). The purpose of this use was to rephrase descriptions and to ensure different levels of performance were sufficiently differentiated. The overall process of generation consisted of: 1. Manual writing of the rubrics 2. Row-by-row rephrasing using UvA AI Chat 3. Manual review and revision of the Gen-AI assisted formulations The prompting used for rephrasing was as follows. >I am creating grading rubrics at the level of a master's programme in brain and cognitive sciences. The following rubric row is meant to measure (insert ILO). Can you improve it?