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 professional development.

This module equips you with a blueprint and an academic toolkit to complete a Bachelor’s thesis in Module 12. Module 11 helps you transition:

TipWhere to find updated information?

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

Supervision touchpoints

The seven recommended supervisor-student touchpoints are:

  1. Kickoff meeting
  2. Problem-cluster draft
  3. RQ & SLR protocol review
  4. Design & validity discussion
  5. Dry-run defence
  6. Final submission & booking
  7. 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.