Dissertation feedback
Data collection (2/20)
The methods section lacks clear structure, and reveals a lack of understanding of the key techniques that should be used in a project of this type. Those methods that are present are not explained with sufficient clarity. Improving the clarity of writing and expression here would lift the mark for this section.
The results section is lacking any kind of numerical data whatsoever. This is a critical omission. What is shown is not in any way sufficient or suitable for a BSc research project (it is a far too basic commentary on the literature, without any kind of analysis).
The aims of the project are not appropriate to this level.
An absolute minimum requirement for any BSc project, is that you must set out to find NUMBERICAL DATA and ANALYSE THE DATA to make a conclusion with respect to your research questions. The research questions given here do not meet this basic minimum requirement.
Data analysis including results (0/20)
The results chapter reveals that no effort whatsoever has been made to collect primary data. There is no numerical data shown. As mentioned above, this is a minimum criteria for any BSc research project, Final year research projects should aim to generate new knowledge, either by performing experiments in the laboratory, or by applying a form of statistical analysis to published data that has not been reported previously. Neither of these criteria have been met in this results section.
Write up of Introduction & Discussion (6/30)
The content of the introduction and discussion is largely on topic, and the topic is suitable for a project. However, the structure and clarity of expression is very poor. There is much confusion as to the basics, and many sentences or sections make no sense. There is almost no logic of progression of topics, or an argument more generally. There is much repetition and use of meaningless “filler” text. The technical elements of the background are quite shallow, and lacking molecular explanations. Improving the logic and clarity of written expression would greatly increase the mark for this section.
Use of References (5/10)
A good number of references is present, although there is little logic to their use in what should be the results section of the thesis.
Standard of writing & Presentation (3/10)
The quality of writing requires much improvement. In particular, the mark would improve significantly with attention to clarity and focus. Improvements to word choice, sentence structure, and grammar, would also help lift the mark substantially.
The post Dissertation feedback Data collection (2/20) The methods section lacks clear structure, and appeared first on PapersSpot.
