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 (1-4) | Insufficient (4.5 - 5.0) | Sufficient (5.5-7) | Good (7.5 - 8.0) | Excellent (8.5 -10) | | :------------------- | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | | 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 throughout the research process. Deadlines were met and the student communicated regularly and clearly with the supervisor about progress, questions, and concerns. Feedback was taken on board and work was revised accordingly. This quality of engagement was sustained across the full arc of the project, not only at key submission points. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student was proactive and took ownership of the research process — anticipating potential problems and coming to meetings not just with questions but with proposed solutions. When the student disagreed with supervisor feedback, they engaged on the merits: defending well-grounded positions with clear reasoning, and revising genuinely when the counterargument was persuasive, rather than deferring automatically. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student demonstrated a high degree of intellectual independence within the collaboration. They independently identified and pursued relevant directions, and took initiative in shaping the scope and approach of the research process with minimal prompting. Supervision conversations were consistently generative — the student's preparation and engagement regularly advanced the work rather than simply course-correcting it. | ## Thesis | Criterion | Poor (1-4) | Insufficient (4.5 - 5.0) | Sufficient (5.5 - 7) | Good (7.5 - 8.0) | Excellent (8.5 - 10) | | :------------------------------------ | :-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------: | | Substantiated position (15%) | 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 student not only acknowledges the limitations and assumptions of their position but makes an explicit, principled case for why it is nonetheless the most defensible conclusion given the available evidence. Competing positions are not merely considered but genuinely tested against the evidence, and the student's chosen position emerges from that process as the most coherent and well-supported account. | | Critical thinking (20%) | The thesis summarises literature without critical evaluation. Research findings are presented as established facts without acknowledging methodological limitations, underlying assumptions, or potential biases. | The thesis includes some critical commentary, but it is superficial or inconsistent. Obvious limitations are noted (e.g., small sample size) but the critique does not extend to theoretical assumptions, internal or external validity, or how potential biases might affect findings. | The thesis demonstrates systematic critical evaluation of the literature. It identifies and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of key studies — including methodological choices (design, measures, statistical analysis), theoretical assumptions, and potential biases — and gives due consideration to contradictory or conflicting findings. | All criteria for the previous level are met. In addition, the student identifies patterns of assumption or bias that operate across multiple studies rather than in isolated cases — for example, a shared methodological convention, a recurring theoretical commitment, or a consistent blind spot in how a phenomenon has been studied. These cross-study patterns are explained and their implications for the literature are made explicit. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The student uses their analysis of field-level patterns to evaluate what the body of evidence as a whole can and cannot reliably support — identifying the cumulative limitations of the literature and explaining why certain conclusions remain uncertain or contested despite a substantial volume of research. | | Synthesis (20%) | Findings are presented as isolated summaries with no connections drawn between them. The interdisciplinary component is absent. | Findings are grouped thematically, but connections between studies are asserted rather than explained — the student places findings side by side without showing how they relate, qualify, or build on each other. The interdisciplinary component is mentioned but not developed. | The thesis constructs a coherent argument from the collected findings, explaining how studies relate to and build upon each other rather than merely summarising them. The interdisciplinary component — whether integrated into the main text or presented separately — clearly states how the synthesis connects to other fields. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The within-field synthesis engages with divergence and convergence across studies rather than just integration — explaining where findings agree, where they conflict, and what those patterns mean for the argument. The interdisciplinary component explains specifically what the synthesis contributes to or illuminates in another field, not just that a connection exists. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The synthesis demonstrates full command of the literature as a structured whole: the argument is tightly constructed, with each element placed deliberately in relation to the others. The interdisciplinary component is genuinely explanatory — it shows how the core argument changes understanding in another field, or how another disciplinary perspective non-trivially strengthens or qualifies the main argument. | | Problem statement (10%) | The problem statement is absent, unclear, or substantially disconnected from existing literature. It is difficult to identify what question or issue the thesis addresses, or the problem is stated so broadly or vaguely that it does not constitute a workable research question. | A problem statement is present but insufficiently grounded in the literature. Key concepts are introduced without adequate definition, or the scope is too broad or too narrow for a master's thesis. The connection between the existing literature and the specific problem being posed is asserted rather than demonstrated. | The problem statement is clear, focused, and grounded in a solid review of relevant literature. Key concepts and operational definitions are explained, and the student demonstrates a sound understanding of the current state of knowledge. The problem is genuinely arguable — it identifies a real gap or unresolved issue — and the scope is realistic given the time available. | All criteria for the previous level are met. In addition, the student makes a compelling case for the relevance of the problem: the gap in the literature is not just identified but explained — why does it exist, what is at stake if it remains unresolved, and why is a literature thesis an appropriate tool to address it? The problem statement reads as well-motivated, not merely well-formulated. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The argumentation for the problem's significance is itself insightful: the student demonstrates an understanding of the field's structure that goes beyond cataloguing what is known and unknown. They explain why the gap has persisted — for example due to competing frameworks, methodological constraints, or cross-disciplinary blind spots — and make a convincing case for what resolving it would contribute. The problem statement shows genuine intellectual ownership of the question. | | Interdisciplinarity (10%) | The thesis presents the research problem from a single disciplinary perspective. Other disciplines may be mentioned but no meaningful connection is made to the analysis. The thesis does not demonstrate that the problem spans multiple fields. | The thesis acknowledges that the research problem is relevant to more than one discipline and describes what different disciplines say about it. However, the perspectives are presented in parallel rather than integrated — the student lists what each field contributes without explaining how they relate to or inform each other. | The thesis integrates insights from multiple disciplines to analyse the research problem. It explains how different disciplines provide complementary perspectives — for example, using neurological evidence to ground a psychological account, or drawing on computational models to clarify a theoretical argument. The integration builds a more complete picture than any single discipline could provide. | All criteria for the previous level are met. In addition, the thesis identifies and engages with tensions or conflicts between disciplinary perspectives — cases where different fields lead to different conclusions or rest on incompatible assumptions. The student provides a reasoned analysis of these discrepancies rather than smoothing them over. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The integrative analysis is exceptional in depth: the student not only engages with tensions but explains why they arise — tracing them to differences in level of analysis, methodological tradition, or theoretical commitments between disciplines. The thesis demonstrates genuine command of each disciplinary perspective, and uses this to produce an analysis that could not have been constructed from within any single field. | | 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. | | Literature coverage and quality (15%) | Few sources, low academic quality, or not clearly relevant to the problem statement. No foundational understanding of the key literature in the field is evident. | A number of relevant scholarly sources are present, but coverage is incomplete. Important or foundational works are missing and the selection lacks clear rationale. The literature base does not yet adequately support the problem statement. | The thesis draws on a comprehensive and relevant set of scholarly sources, including key reviews, seminal works, and recent research. Sources are of high academic quality and are used coherently to build a line of argument. The student demonstrates a solid grasp of the most important findings in the field. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The selection of sources reflects purposeful choices: the student has clearly distinguished between foundational work, competing approaches, and recent developments, and the coverage is well-tailored to the specific demands of the problem statement. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The literature base goes beyond the obvious sources — the student has identified less prominent but highly relevant work, and the coverage as a whole reveals a deep familiarity with the field that goes beyond typical master's-level research. | | GenAI choices and justification (5%) | No statement on GenAI use is present. | A statement is present but is generic — either a blanket declaration of non-use or a list of tools and tasks with no reasoning. The account could apply unchanged to any thesis and shows no engagement with the specific demands of the student's own research process. | The student provides a reasoned account of their approach to GenAI — whether they used it or not — that is grounded in the specific nature of their thesis work. They explain what about their particular tasks or topic made their approach appropriate. The reasoning is specific enough that it could not apply to any other thesis without modification. | All criteria for the previous level are met. Reasoning is consistent and specific across multiple stages of the research and writing process. The student demonstrates genuine awareness of what GenAI can and cannot reliably do for their type of work, with reference to the concrete decisions they actually faced rather than generic claims about AI capabilities. | All criteria for the previous level are met. The account reflects a sophisticated and coherent understanding of GenAI's role in the student's specific research. Choices — whether to use GenAI or not, and for which tasks — are clearly explained and follow from a consistent understanding of the fit between the technology and the intellectual demands of the work. The reasoning demonstrates that the student genuinely thought this through, not merely as a retrospective formality. | # 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 - 5.0 | | Sufficient | 5.5 - 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?