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:

From group work to independent research.
From staff-driven to self-driven learning.
From applying known theory to selecting and justifying appropriate theory.

Where to find updated information?

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

Supervision touchpoints

The seven recommended supervisor-student touchpoints are:

Kickoff 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.	Coherent narrative; critical integration of theory; explicit limitations.	Synthesises competing theories and examines how methodology and positionality affect the work.
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; evidence is triangulated; cost-benefit reasoning supports the choice of core problem.
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.	Clear logic; risks addressed; tightly scoped; deliverable matches the problem.	Evidence supports each step; contingency plans address major risks; deliverable and scope match the client’s 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.	Precise focus; literature gap demonstrated for each question.	Theory supports each question, and the literature review explains why each question is necessary.
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.	Methods complement one another where appropriate; limitations and mitigation strategies are examined in detail.
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; detailed definitions; relationships explained and hypotheses proposed.	Integrates multiple theories into a coherent model with explained relationships 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.	Clear prose; visuals support the argument; no grammar or style errors.	Precise academic writing; visuals and cross-references consistently support the argument.
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.	Confident delivery; persuasive argumentation; clear discussion of methodological limitations.	Answers probing questions with evidence and explains the implications of the main research choices.