When carrying out and writing up your project report, it is very important to understand how it will later be assessed. Please see Part 2 of this handbook for the specific marking criteria that apply for your course.
14.1 General marking criteria
Project requirements will differ considerably from MSc to MSc; but the School uses a standard grading scale to ensure comparability of standards across all students. The final mark for your project report will be reported either as a numeric gradepoint or a gradepoint average (GPA) on this standard grading scale, which runs from 0 – 5.
The particular system that applies for your MSc course is set out in Part 2 of this handbook.
Most MScs use marking schemes under which markers agree a single overall grade.
However certain MScs use component-based marking schemes, allowing the award of a project GPA rather than an integer gradepoint. In these cases, it should have been made clear to you in advance what proportion of the marks are awarded for particular sections of the project report, such as the introduction, aims and objectives, materials and methods, results, discussion and recommendations.
The following table indicates the qualitative descriptors which relate to each gradepoint, ranging from 5 (Excellent) through to 0 (Very poor); and broadly describes the kind of factors that work at each level is expected to achieve – although please be aware that the specific criteria for your course in Part 2 of this handbook will be more definitive.
Grade
point Descriptor Typical work should include evidence of…
5
Excellent Excellent engagement with the topic, excellentdepth of understanding & insight, excellent argument & analysis. Generally, this work will be ‘distinction standard’.
4
Very good Very good engagement with the topic, very good depth of understanding & insight, very good argument & analysis. This work may be ‘borderline distinction standard’.3
Good Good (but not necessarily comprehensive) engagement with the topic, clear understanding & insight, reasonable argument & analysis.2
Satisfactory Adequate evidence of engagement with the topic but some gaps in understanding or insight, routine argument & analysis.1
Unsatisfactory / poor (fail)Inadequate engagement with the topic, gaps in understanding, poor argument & analysis.
0
Very poor Poor engagement with the topic, limitedGrade
point Descriptor Typical work should include evidence of… (fail) understanding, very poor argument & analysis.
0
Not submitted (null)Null mark may be given where work has not been submitted, or is in serious breach of assessment criteria/regulations.
The project is worth 45 credits under the LSHTM credit system, and must be passed (with at least a grade 2 or above) in order to pass the MSc.
14.2 What the examiners will be looking for
The specific criteria which will apply for marking project reports on your MSc are set out in Part 2 of this handbook. This should describe the scientific, academic and critical skills being assessed, and identify which elements of the project you will be expected to demonstrate them in. A typical example would be as follows –
Element Student Skills
Background, literature and theory elements
Critical thinking Data analysis and conclusion
sections*
Ability to analyse data and draw conclusions*
Data collection and findings sections Independent research skills The entire written report Clear coherent writing Style, presentation and referencing of
the project
Familiarity with writing conventions
* Data may be either qualitative or quantitative and may include the literature identified as part of your review
In all cases (unless specifically stated to the contrary), examiners will be looking to see:
Evidence of learning: Your project report should be your own work, and include original thinking, though you should discuss and review your ideas
with your tutor. If you make use of any work conducted by others, this should be appropriately referenced (see Section 11.4 on Referencing, earlier in this handbook).
Evidence of scientific and academic standards: Including –
Whether the main project report is structured in an appropriate way;
How well you make the case for your study design in the light of your research question;
Whether the project meets the stated aims and objectives set out in the project report;
Appropriate and competent use of methods for data collection or generation and analysis;
Convincing well-argued conclusions; and
A full reference list of all sources of knowledge, data and ideas in the project report, whether these were published in paper form or obtained via the internet.
Evidence of critical skills: Your project report should demonstrate your ability to integrate your skills in conducting an independent piece of research, including –
Critical thinking;
Analysing data and drawing conclusions;
Clear and coherent writing; and
Presenting your findings in an appropriate way. 14.3 What happens next?
A little after the project hand-in deadline, you will be emailed and asked for your feedback about the project experience. Projects are a hugely
important part of MSc study at LSHTM, and feedback about any areas where the School has scope to make improvements or enhancements is very helpful for future students. Your comments will be much appreciated.
After your project report has been marked, your LSHTM supervisor will be sent a copy. You may also wish to send copies to others who assisted you, e.g. co-supervisors or technical advisors at external sites. The Library will make all projects of pass standard or above available to future students. Where you have achieved a good mark and your project report has particularly interesting or original features, you may be encouraged to consider submitting it for publication in a peer-reviewed journal (see notes about this earlier on in this handbook, under Section 10 on Copyright). Your
supervisor, Course Director or personal tutor may be able to offer you further advice on this.
14.4 Project re-sits
A small proportion of students each year will fail their project and be required to re-sit. Such cases will be followed up in line with the School’s re-sits policy, (www.lshtm.ac.uk/edu/taughtcourses/exams_assmt_staff/resits_policy.pdf). There are three types of re-sit which Exam Boards can require students to undertake:
‘Revision and re-submission’: to make corrections and submit a revised project (based on the same core material) within two months of the student being notified of this. An extension or deferral beyond two months may be requested if necessary. Written feedback and guidance about the corrections required will be provided.
‘Further data collection’: to collect new data and revise/update the project (based on the same basic topic) for the following year’s deadline. This may be most common where data previously collected has been insufficient or flawed.
‘New project’: to do a new project on an entirely new topic – where there are fundamental problems in the original submission that cannot simply be revised. This should be submitted for the following year’s deadline. For ‘revise and re-submit’ projects, students are allowed one further meeting with either their supervisor or Course Director (up to 2 hours further staff support time in total) to help clarify how to address markers’ feedback; but supervisors should not be expected to read a revised draft.
For ‘further data collection’ and ‘new’ projects, the School will endeavour to provide the same level of supervision as for original projects – namely 15 hours contact time maximum, across a single period of no longer than 12 weeks (period to be agreed between the supervisor and student). Students may request a different supervisor for such re-sit work.
PART TWO: COURSE-SPECIFIC PROJECT
INFORMATION
Course Directors, please complete and number applicable sections below. The course-specific details you provide will be published along with the standard School-wide information and guidance in Part One, as the specific Project Handbook for your course.
Objectives of the project report
List course-specific objectives here [to be added by Course Director]. Note that generic ‘MSc project learning objectives’ are detailed in standard School- wide information about projects.
Identifying a project topic – how the process works for this MSc
Give details here [to be added by Course Director] – noting whether students must come up with their own topic and who they might wish to speak to in deciding this (e.g. tutor, Course Director); or whether a list of set project topics will be provided (e.g. in labs, with a pre-assigned supervisor) and if so how these will be allocated; or details of any other guidance or arrangements. May wish to give further guidance on how the proposal development and
approval process (using CARE etc) should work for the course – link in to key dates and deadlines later.
Types of project report permitted for this MSc
List and describe here [to be added by Course Director] – give clear criteria for what each different type of project permitted involves.
Also describe options for extended projects where these are permitted (MSc IID only).
Courses with a page limit rather than a word limit should re-iterate this here (currently Med Stats only).
Some courses may wish to set specific restrictions – e.g. that project work overseas may not be allowed.
Expected time commitment of projects
Describe here [to be added by Course Director] at whatever level of detail is felt appropriate – may be very brief. The standard School expectation is 450 hours of learning time for a standard length project, with a typical split of 50 hours planning/preparation, 300 hours active project work, and 100 hours writing up; but this may vary by course and by project type, e.g. lab projects and literature reviews would require a different split of time.
Identifying a supervisor – how the process works for this MSc
Give details here [to be added by Course Director] – noting whether students will be assigned a supervisor, or have one attached with a set topic once selected, or must find their own supervisor.
Supervisor support
Give details here [to be added by Course Director] about any specific supervision practices that apply.
May wish to give further details about how the School’s quota of “max. 10 hours supervisory guidance” is expected to work.
Key dates and deadlines
Give details here [to be added by Course Director] about specific deadlines that apply – including for academic approval (from supervisor and Course Director), ethics approval (if a course-specific deadline has been agreed with the MSc Research Ethics Committee), and final submission (latest possible submission date, which will be in the first week of September 2014). Set out any further specific stages, milestones and deadlines that may
apply for the course – following on from guidance in Part One about how proposal development and approval should operate (using CARE etc). Project marking criteria
Marking scheme must be included [to be added by Course Director].
Describe any differences in marking criteria for different permitted types of project – may be appropriate to provide full marking criteria as given to markers.
If a component marking scheme is to be used, make clear what the components are and their respective weightings.
Further course-specific information
Provide here [to be added by Course Director].
Where appropriate, give any further course-specific guidance on writing- up the project – including about the specific sections to include (e.g. Introduction, Aims & Objectives, Materials and methods, Results,
Discussion, Recommendations), recommended referencing systems (e.g. Harvard or Vancouver), etc.
May also wish to give further course-specific guidance on requirements for the final report submission – e.g. presentation requirements, file formats to be used, a checklist of forms or other documentation to be appended to the main project report, etc.