• Honours home
• 1. Introduction

1.1. Scope of these guidelines
1.2. Sources of information

• 2. Academic requirements of the honours course

2.1. Basic course details
2.2. Course objectives
2.3. Areas of specialisation
2.4. Admission requirements
2.5. Repeating units for honours admission purposes
2.6. Period of candidature and enrolment
2.7. Advanced standing for previous studies

• 3. Roles and responsibilities

3.1. Faculty Board
3.2. Faculty Education Committee
3.3. Faculty Board of Examiners
3.4. Associate Dean (Education)
3.5. Faculty Academic Manager
3.6. Faculty Honours Committee and Board of Examiners (FHC&BE)
3.7. School Honours Coordinator
3.8. Academic supervisors
3.9. Students

• 4. Approved honours requirements for each area of specialisation

4.1. Objectives for each area of specialisation
4.2. Publication of assessment requirements
4.3. Honours assessment guidelines for typical assessment tasks
4.4. Submission of results for honours component units
4.5. Overall honours mark and grade

• 5. Faculty honours administration

5.1. Admission and enrolment
5.2. Deferment and intermission
5.3. Load management and quotas
5.4. Honours units
5.5. Special consideration
5.6. Appeal process
5.7. Scholarships
5.8. Graduation

• 6. School academic responsibilities

6.1. Provision of induction information
6.2. School policies on supervisory practices
6.3. Absences of supervisors
6.4. Identification and roles of co-supervisors
6.5. Assessment processes and criteria
6.6. General guidelines for the final research project thesis

List of appendices
• Appendix 1 – Relevant university policies and procedures
• Appendix 2 – Objectives of honours in areas of specialisation
• Appendix 3 – Full-time and part-time honours unit structure
• Appendix 4 – Honours research thesis assessment guidelines
• Appendix 5 – Sample oral presentation assessment sheet (DOC 56KB)

Appendix 4 – Honours research thesis assessment guidelines

Preamble

The guidelines which follow are not intended as an exact prescription for the assessment of honours theses, as schools/departments will vary in their precise expectations for the way in which research is performed and reported in their own discipline. However, they may provide a useful overview for both staff and honours students. The main aim of this document is to encourage staff to be explicit about the criteria by which students’ work is evaluated, and for students to be aware of this. Schools/departments should produce their own versions of these guidelines, adapting them to their own assessment criteria so that both the dimensions being assessed, and the different levels of achievement expected at each honours grade, are clear.

It is also important to note that these guidelines apply only to the research thesis. Honours programs include other components in addition to the thesis, and a student’s performance in these may be determined by other, and discipline-specific, criteria. A student may obtain an HI in the thesis but an HIIA overall, or vice versa.

The descriptors make no reference to publishability of the research thesis. The honours thesis is a training ground for learning, and demonstrating mastery of, research skills, and it should be possible for a student to get a high mark for an outstanding command of methodology and its application to the content area of the thesis, even if the topic has been already researched in the literature. Thus the kind of originality expected would be in terms of new insights into a possibly well-established area, rather than a genuinely original research study. It is perfectly acceptable for a student to obtain null results, or to test what a marker may personally may find a rather mundane question. The good student will find imaginative and theoretically sound ways of interpreting their results.

The thesis should be examined by two independent markers; in some schools/departments, one is the supervisor.

Examiners' reports

In schools/departments where examiners’ reports are made available to students, it is recommended that substantive comments are not written on the thesis itself, but provided as a separate report (however spelling and typographical errors should be corrected on the thesis, and minor grammatical solecisms). Grammatical faults which require more than this should be documented in the separate examiner’s report. Comments like “your grasp of prose is inadequate” are unhelpful; telling the student that he/she persistently matches singular nouns with plural verbs (and even giving page numbers) is helpful.

Markers should be careful about the general tenor of comments. What may be intended as constructive criticism or light-hearted irony may come across to the student as soul-destroying. For most students, the honours year represents a considerable leap in our standards and expectations, and some have more difficulty rising to these than others. That doesn’t mean they haven’t given it their best effort, and we should recognise their intentions, even though they are being assessed in terms of the consequences. Remember also the power of positive reinforcement: tell them when they have done something well.

The examiner’s report should be about one page in length. Keep in mind that the student has spent most of the year on this project, and deserves more than a mere sentence or two of reflection on their thesis. Examiners’ reports should be signed rather than anonymous. It should be possible for students to seek further constructive feedback on their thesis.

Reconciling mark discrepancies

As noted above, all honours research theses should be examined by at least two full members of academic staff, both of whom should return a recommended mark. Schools/departments should make known the procedures by which they reconcile marking disagreements. One possible model is suggested below:

• If the difference between the two examiners' marks is less than some specified amount (eg. 5% or 10%), the final mark will be the mean of the two marks. How wide a disagreement is considered acceptable should be determined and specified by schools/departments.
• If the difference is in some specified range (eg. 10 - 19%), the markers will seek to reduce the difference to less than X% by discussing their reasons for awarding their marks and comparing their examiners' reports. If this succeeds, the mark awarded shall be the mean of the two. If the procedure does not result in sufficient agreement (eg. the difference remains greater than 10% but less than 20%), a third marker shall be appointed. Resolution of the final mark should occur through discussion between the third marker and the original markers.
• If the difference is greater than some specified amount (eg. 20%), a third marker will be automatically appointed. The three markers will then discuss their reasons for awarding their marks. As one outcome may be two similar marks and an outlier, it is important to allow for input from the outlying marker rather than taking a simple average or ignoring the outlier. This may entail:
• examining the written comments for fairness and accuracy and/or
• considering the experience and tendency of the markers for "hard" or "easy" marking at other times, and/or
• using any other information (eg. from the supervisor) that may assist in determining the reason for the unacceptably large difference.

In cases of irreconcilable disagreement, a fourth examiner will be appointed.

Honours grade descriptors

H1(80 - 100)

Broad features

An ‘upper H1’ (90 - 100) student has strengths in all of the following areas:

• outstanding command of expression and logical argument in a skilfully structured manuscript;
• superior evaluation and integration of existing literature;
• evidence of significant insight and original thought in dealing with the critical issues;
• sophisticated understanding of research methods, with evidence of careful attention to critical design issues in the execution of the project;
• thoughtful and appropriate choice of data analysis (where appropriate) and outstanding presentation and reporting of results;
• clear and coherent interpretation of the thesis data, and/or the results of other studies;
• comprehensive understanding of the importance of the results in the context of the theoretical framework.
• A ‘lower H1’ (80 -90) student displays many of the above strengths but is less well-balanced in overall quality.
• Overall:An H1 student (upper or lower) is obviously capable of undertaking postgraduate research and warrants strong scholarship support.

H2A (70 - 79)

Broad features

The project is characterised by most of the following:

• the manuscript is well written, logically argued and generally well structured;
• the evaluation and integration of the existing literature is very sound without being outstanding;
• reasonable insight and some evidence of original thought in dealing with the critical issues
• evidence of a solid understanding of research methods;
• adequate design of the research project, although possibly containing minor but retrievable errors;
• choice of data analysis that is appropriate for the design (although less well justified than might be expected of H1 standard), and clear presentation of results;
• generally sound but pedestrian interpretation of results and their importance to the theoretical context.
• Overall:An H2A student is capable of undertaking postgraduate research.

H2B(60 - 69)

Broad features

The project is characterised by most of the following:

• generally competently written, although some problems exist in the logical organisation of the text and the way it is expressed;
• provides an adequate coverage of the literature, although it tends to be more descriptive than evaluative, and arguments are often disjointed;
• occasional evidence of insight into the issues underlying the thesis or essay, but little evidence of original thinking;
• basic but somewhat limited understanding of the research methods;
• the design of the research project is generally adequate but is marred by some errors and oversights;
• serviceable choice of data analysis, although other approaches may have been more appropriate;
• the presentation of results lacks clarity;
• interpretation of results or other studies is adequate but limited.
• Overall:An H2B student may be capable of undertaking postgraduate research but would require close supervision.

H3(50 - 59)

Broad features

The project is characterised by most of the following:

• the work is not well written and shows flaws in the structuring of logical arguments;
• coverage of the necessary literature is weak, with insufficient information provided to support the arguments made, or conclusions drawn, within the thesis or essay;
• little evidence of insight and ideas tend to be highly derivative;
• knowledge of research methods is deficient;
• serious flaws exist in the design of the research project making it difficult for the research to meet its aims;
• data analysis techniques are arbitrary or inappropriate;
• the results are poorly presented;
• interpretations are superficial, demonstrating a weak understanding of the results and their relevance to the theoretical framework.
• Overall:Although a student’s undergraduate performance merited eligibility for honours, the student showed considerable difficulty in mastering the higher-order skills required at honours level and would not be able to undertake postgraduate research.

Fail (0 - 50)

Broad features

The project is characterised by most of the following:

• the work is very poorly written and shows a serious inability to structure and present a logical argument;
• coverage of the necessary literature is inadequate, with little information provided relevant to the claims made, or conclusions drawn, within the thesis;
• serious misunderstanding of key concepts and issues;
• knowledge of research methods is lacking;
• serious flaws exist in the design of the research project making it difficult or impossible for the research to meet its aims;
• data analysis techniques are inappropriate and the results are presented inadequately;
• an inability to show how the results of the research project relate to the theoretical framework; serious misinterpretations of results.
• Overall: Think carefully before awarding this grade - it casts doubt on the student's admission in the first place.

Approved at Faculty of Science Education Committee meeting 06/98 - 21 October 1998
Amended with minor revisions at meeting 01/02 – 27 February 2002