| layout | title | description | image | nav-menu |
|---|---|---|---|---|
landing |
Theses & Assessments |
assets/images/gisma-15.jpg |
true |
Whatever degree you are working towards, you will be able to work on a dissertation of your choice and motivation.
You can be sure that you will be supervised with the same dedication that you put into your own work.
Naturally, the topics offered and selected are mainly those that require a significant amount of application of modern computer-based methods, i.e. data analysis, environmental informatics GI-S, remote sensing and modelling.
However, the range of topics is very broad and can be extended at any time by the expertise of internal or external colleagues. You are welcome to contribute and discuss your own topic.
The most important thing is that you are committed and enjoy the (self-imposed) task. In addition, you should be prepared to write an exposé at the beginning of the work, which will serve as a basis for the supervision and outline of the final project. If you choose to work on a given topic, you are expected to approach the question with a certain degree of empathy and to work on the task independently. The conceptual solution proposals for sub-problems and the overall problem should come from you and will be coached and accompanied by the AG.
In addition, you will be systematically networked with other supervisors and fellow students to create a constructive environment for discussion.
Of course, there are also formal requirements that you should fulfil. The main ones are Scientific transparency and reproducibility.
- Operational derivation of the near-surface wind field in highly relief terrain from weather data sets
- Derivation of spatio-cellular patterns to determine microclimates in forested areas.
- Physical modelling of forest microclimates.
- Automated UAV-based analysis of landscape structure elements.
Criteria for the preparation and assessment of project work in modules of the regular BS/L3 course of study at the Department of Geography, Philipps-Universität Marburg
Chris Reudenbach, Department of Geography Philipps-Universität Marburg reudenbach@uni-marburg.de
This assessment guide is intended for students of the Department of Geography at the Philipps-Universität Marburg. It aims to create a sufficient degree of comparability and transparency in the administration and assessment of examinations. The guidelines lay down the requirements for students and thus serve as a basis for self-assessment and critical examination of one's own work. In this way, the assessment criteria used by the course instructor are presented to the students in a comprehensible manner. Although these criteria form the basis of an assessment, this necessarily remains within a subjective framework.
According to the examination regulations (BSc. PO, 2016, L3 PO, 2017), examination papers, in terms of their purpose and scope, are both a central piece of coursework in the programme and evidence of the overall learning success to be assessed. In terms of content and form, exams are intended to prove that students can independently work on a problem in the subject area using scientific methods within a set period of time (cf. e.g. §11.3, BSc.PO, 2016). Following Deiniger, dissertations can be described as "examinations with a scientific claim" (Deiniger et al. 1996:7).
Since the term "independent scientific work" is not defined in more detail and therefore cannot be relied upon with regard to concrete assessment criteria, the requirements and assessment criteria for the participants should be reliably outlined and made comprehensible on the basis of concrete criteria, as far as this seems reasonable and possible. The catalogue of criteria presented here is based in part on the considerations of Lorenzen (2002) and Boles (2002), as well as an ongoing discussion1 within the department.
The terms "doing scientific work" or "using scientific methods" are not defined with complete consistency in the literature and are therefore examined from a variety of perspectives (seminars, exercises, etc.) during the course of study. In addition, there is easily accessible relevant literature, e.g. in Backhaus & Tuor (2008), Baade et al. (2005) or Bänsch (2003), in which all essential aspects are derived, discussed in detail and corresponding sources are provided for further elaboration. In the following modified list, the resulting requirements for students are summarised in keywords according to Lorenzen (2002) and, for the reasons mentioned above, are not discussed in more detail.
Scientific work can be outlined as follows (based on Lorenzen, 2002)
- Integration and confident use of the technical/methodological knowledge acquired in the course of study
- Ability to independently work on and solve a question/problem in a systematic and methodically correct way.
- Discourse and critical skills
- Ability to argue and express oneself in a transparent, logical and concise manner
- Ability to present results (e.g. article, paper, poster, lecture) correctly in form and content.
On this basis, the acceptance and application of good scientific practice for project work is assumed. For a more detailed discussion, in particular of the often ignored ethical aspects of science (e.g. plagiarism), see the DFG position paper (1998). This position has also found its way into the Hessian Higher Education Act (HSchulG 2010) and is the legal basis for evaluating the scientific working methods of professional researchers in the event of violations.
A central, if not the central, aim of university education is to provide students with the key skills for creative, critical, independent and scientifically correct work on more or less original problems and questions of the respective discipline. Consequently, such skills are also expected of students in the preparation of examination work (project work, dissertations, etc.). Lorenzen (2002) characterises these skills and their application with a view to their assessment as follows: *"Essential for obtaining a good grade is to work on a manageable problem a) within a certain period of time, b) independently, albeit under the supervision of experts, c) using appropriate scientific methods, and d) presenting it in a recognised scientific form" (Lorenzen, 2002:3). In order to further limit possible interpretations, Lorenzen specifies this statement in the following text:
Independence begins with the choice of a topic given by the examiner or one's own thematic proposals and is shown in the delimitation of the topic, in the formulation of the approach to the investigation, in the choice of material and in the decision for the appropriate solution (method). [...].
*A dissertation is considered scientifically correct if all of the questions listed in the introduction are answered, and all of the findings and assertions are verifiably substantiated and conclusively proven. Arbitrary omission of partial aspects of a topic or incomplete reasoning in the chain of evidence are considered serious scientific deficiencies. Personal views of the author ("prejudices") must be reflected very critically. [...] This includes the requirement of unconditional honesty on the part of the author in disclosing the sources from which findings, arguments and suggestions have been drawn". (*Lorenzen, 2002:4)
The aspects mentioned are a central canon of scientific education and university self-understanding. In case of ambiguity, please refer to the literature cited above for further details.
Even in the examination context of project work, violations of this practice are therefore by no means "trivial offences", but a clear violation of recognised rules and the ethical self-commitment of scientific working methods. The consequences for students, here related to examination performance, are far-reaching and range from performance that cannot be adequately assessed to legal action (DFG 1998; see also Philipps-Universität Marburg, Fachbereich Geographie, 2016).
Examination papers are to be written in a defined manner in terms of form, content and style. If no special agreements have been made, the binding guidelines for the preparation of papers, written homework, diploma, bachelor and master theses at the Department of Geography (Philipps-Universität Marburg, Fachbereich Geographie, 2016) apply. The Project Paper (PA) is the examination performance of the modules MAS/System Dynamics L-Spam in the BA/L3 programme Geography. The examination performance consists of the completion of an independently developed project and the submission of a final scientific report. The aim of the PA is to practice conceptual and technical skills in the context of an application-oriented, individual scientific way of working and communicating.
The PA should be based on an independently developed problem in consultation with the course instructor. Students are expected to apply the techniques and content taught in the course to their problem using geoinformation software, and to develop them further if necessary.
Project work is supervised by the course management and, if necessary, by the tutors. They are available for specific follow-up and enquiries. The course instructors evaluate the examination performance.
The planned duration of the project work is 4 weeks. The weekly workload is 12 hours (2 SWS classroom teaching, 2 SWS preparation, 3 SWS wrap-up). As this is group work with 1-3 students, an average of 100 working hours per group can be assumed for the entire project.
In the event of failure, examinations may be resit twice in accordance with the examination regulations. A resit is considered to be a timely correction to achieve at least an adequate grade or, alternatively, the re-working of a topic. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, in the case of a resubmission the grade will be calculated as the arithmetic mean of the first submission and the resubmission, whereas in the case of a resubmission an independent assessment will be carried out.
The grading scheme, translated into marks, is as follows
-
Satisfactory level (5-9 NP).
- The NetLogo template has been optimised by integrating, moving or deleting components. This optimisation makes it possible to answer your own question.
- Question and hypothesis: A section of space was precisely defined as the object of investigation and the spatial elements to be studied were named. Expected patterns were formulated as a hypothesis.
- Application, results: Patterns were recognised and abstracted from the methodically thought-out and extensively documented application of the netlogo model, and any information about positional relationships was identified.
- Discussion: The* results are discussed in comparison with real room samples (photos).
-
Good level (9-12 NP).
- Advanced level: The functional relationships of the NetLogo template have been optimised. This optimisation makes it possible to answer your own question.
- Question and hypothesis:* Spatial functional relationships are investigated. To do this, a functional relationship between components that is described with sufficient precision to answer a specific question is explicitly formulated as a hypothesis.
- Application, results:* From the methodically well thought-out and detailed documented application of the netlogo model, a correlation is explained on the basis of the presented model output.
- Discussion: The significance of the results is discussed statistically or on the basis of other research results (scientific articles).
-
Very good level (12-15 NP).
- The compilation of the underlying structures and functions has been optimised. This optimisation only allows an answer to the own question.
- Research question and hypothesis:* Spatial processes and interactions are investigated. Spatial details and elements and relevant functions are clearly defined and a hypothesis about a process is derived.
- Application and results:* The methodically well thought out and detailed documented execution of the simulation process generates data. These are used to verify the hypothesis in a methodically justified way. (e.g. Why do the data support the hypothesis?).
- Discussion: The* limitations of the results are tested and discussed by varying the simulation. Additional discussion using other research approaches or primary spatial data is positive.
For all levels, the best possible evaluation requires a formally, linguistically and logically largely error-free presentation. The following table supports these criteria. The so-called KO criteria automatically lead to a formal failure (see below).
| Requirements | | |The formal conventions of the delivery were not observed (deadline, formats naming etc.)| KO | |Missing list of sources/literature, missing references in the text to literature or illustrations, plagiarism in the text/illustrations.|KO| |The work shows that the subject area defined by the question has not been penetrated at least sufficiently or that the student has fundamental gaps in the prerequisite knowledge.| KO | |The knowledge interest in the topic is recognizable and communicated| mandatory | |The work is based on a defined problem or question| mandatory | |Literature/source references are available, the list of sources/literature and the citation method are correct and consistent and assigned to the references in the text| mandatory | |If used, figure and table captions/numbering are available| mandatory | |If used, references in the text to figures, maps, diagrams or tables are provided| mandatory | |Scientifically, technically and factually adequate sources were used.| mandatory | |The work is logical in structure and argumentation, solutions are comprehensible and justified. The texts are written without mental leaps and/or logical breaks.| mandatory |
Table: Requirement descriptions Formalia and KO
Ammoneit R.,Reudenbach C., Turek A.,Nauß T & Cpeter (2019): Geographische Modellierkompetenz – Modellierung von Raum konzeptualisieren. GW-Unterricht 156 (4/2019), 19–29.
Baade, J., Gertel, H. & A. Schlottmann, (2005): Wissenschaftlich arbeiten. Ein Leitfaden für Studierende der Geographie. (UTB 2630) Verlag Haupt Bern.
Backhaus, N., & R. Tuor, (2008): Leitfaden für wissenschaftliches Arbeiten. – 7. Auf. – Zürich, (Schriftenreihe / Humangeographie 18) [elektron. Ressource] https://www.geo.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:a8456d7c-df2d-4603-813a-b1b6c201225b/Leitfaden_v7_0.pdf (Stand: 2008, Zugriff: 28.01.2020)
Bänsch, A. (2003): Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten: Seminar- und Diplomarbeiten. 8. Aufl. München: Oldenbourg. 112 S. ISBN 3-486-27355-8.
Behrendes L., Cermak, J., Opgenoorth, L., & C. Reudenbach, (2007): Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen (AGB v. 0.7), FB 19 Marburg, Diskussionspapier,[elektron. Ressource] http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb19/personal/wiss_ma/reudenbach/courses. (Stand: 15.10.2007), (Zugriff: 10.02.2009)
Boles, D., (2002): Leitfaden zur Durchführung individueller Projekte, http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/studium/leitfaeden/Leitfaden-IP.pdf. (Stand:19.09.2002, Zugriff 1.10.2008).
BSc. PO (2016): Studien- und Prüfungsordnung für den Studiengang Geographie/Geography des Fachbereichs Geographie mit dem Abschluss Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) der Philipps-Universität Marburg vom Stand 2016. [elektron. Ressource] https://www.uni-marburg.de/de/universitaet/administration/recht/studprueo/01-bachelorstudiengaenge/po-geographie-ba-dritte-aenderung-10052017.pdf (Stand: 2016, Zugriff: 28.01.2020)
L3 PO (2017): Studien- und Prüfungsordnung für den Studiengang Geographie/Geography des Fachbereichs Geographie mit dem Abschluss Lehramt an Gymnasien der Philipps-Universität Marburg vom Stand 2017. [elektron. Ressource] https://www.uni-marburg.de/de/universitaet/administration/recht/studprueo/03-lehramt/48_2013.pdf Stand: 2017, Zugriff: 28.01.2020)
DFG (1998):Vorschläge zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis: Empfehlungen der Kommission „Selbstkontrolle in der Wissenschaft“; Denkschrift = Proposals for safeguarding good scientific practice / Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. –Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, [elektron. Ressource] http://www.dfg.de/aktuelles_presse/reden_stellungnahmen/download/empfehlung_wiss_praxis_0198.pdf. (Stand: 1998, Zugriff: 24.11.2010)
HSchulG HE (2010): Hessisches Hochschulgesetz vom 01.01.2010. [elektron. Ressource] http://www.hessen.de/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/slimp.CMReader/HMWK_15/HMWK_Internet/med/594/5942de1d-cbd9-521f-012f-31e2389e4818,22222222-2222-2222-2222-222222222222 (Stand: 01.01.2010), (Zugriff: 31.01.2010)
Lorenzen, K. (2002): Wissenschaftliche Anforderungen an Diplomarbeiten und Kriterien ihrer Beurteilung [elektron. Ressource] 3. Ausg. HAW Hamburg, FB B/I. http://www.bui.fh-hamburg.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diplom/lorenzen_wissenschaftliche_anforderungen_dipl.pdf (Stand: 10.2.2002, Zugriff: 24.11.2010)
Philipps-Universität Marburg (2006): Grundsätze und Verfahrensregeln für den Umgang bei wissenschaftlichem Fehlverhalten an der Philipps-Universität Marburg. [elektron. Ressource] <https://www.uni-marburg.de/de/forschung/profil/ombudsperson/fehlverhalten.pdf> (Stand: 2011, Zugriff: 28.01.2020).
Philipps-Universität Marburg Fachbereich Geographie (2007): Verbindliche Richtlinien zur Anfertigung von Referaten, schriftlichen Hausarbeiten, Diplom-, Bachelor- und Masterarbeiten im Fachbereich Geographie.[elektron. Ressource] https://www.uni-marburg.de/de/fb19/studium/pruefungsamt/formulare/dateien/richtlinien2016.pdf. (Stand: 10/2016, Zugriff: 28.01.2020)
Footnotes
-
The structure and some individual criteria are (in parts) based on: Boles, D., (2002): Guide to the implementation of individual projects. Overall, Behrendes et al. (2007) AGB 0.7 serves as the basis for the evaluation criteria. The AGB is based on the assumption that the students have dealt with scientific working techniques to a sufficient extent. For this, Backhaus & Tuor, (2008), Leitfaden für wissenschaftliches Arbeiten, is assumed. For all other bibliographic references, see bibliography. ↩