微信客服：xiaoxionga100
微信客服：ITCS521
MATH4062-无代写
时间：2023-09-04
ot contribute to the module mark.
Assessment
The project is assessed by a written final report (85%) and an oral presentation
(15%).
Written presentation: The report is required to be word processed, including
equations, with software of your choice. We recommend using to learn LaTeX (see
below) to write your report, but you do not have to use LaTeX. Unless the scientific
content strongly justifies otherwise, the length should normally be between 60 and 90
pages in total, including any appendices, in double-spaced 12-point font with left,
right, top, and bottom margins of at least 2.5cm. A final report exceeding 90 pages by
up to 5 pages will incur an overall 5% penalty of the maximum mark. Excess length
above this will incur a 10% penalty.
A student who wishes to exceed the page limit without penalty should make a written
case to the Dissertations Officer johannes.hofscheier@nottingham.ac.uk no later than
seven calendar days before the hand-in deadline. Permission to exceed the page limit
will only be granted in exceptional circumstances (e.g., tables of data collected during
the project, on which the work is based; listings of computer programs written for the
project; etc.).
Attempts to circumvent the maximum length by reduced spacing and/or margins will
be penalised.
Oral presentation: during the last two weeks of the Dissertation period you are
required to give a short presentation, of approximately 15 minutes, on your work and
to answer questions. The talk should be aimed at an audience of MSc Students, who
will have a reasonable background but will be unfamiliar with your particular topic.
The presentation will be conducted online; further details will be provided by the
module convenor at the beginning of August.
The dissertation is worth 60 credits. You are expected to put into the project an
amount of work comparable to that of taking a semester’s lecture courses. The final
report is your evidence of this work.
You should discuss the plan of your report with your supervisor before you begin to
write it. You are also encouraged to give your supervisor one draft of the report. Your
supervisor is not expected to read the draft in detail but can give general feedback.
Other staff members (such as your Personal Tutor) are not expected to read drafts or
provide other extensive help. You are also encouraged to discuss your oral
presentation with the supervisor.
Submission of Final Report
You need to submit a pdf of your report via the submission link on Moodle, on or
before the deadline shown above.
If your final report is submitted late without good cause, your report mark will be
reduced by 5 marks per working day on the standard University scale. If the report is
twenty or more working days late, you will receive a report mark of zero. If, because
of extenuating circumstances, you need extra time to complete your final report, then
you should complete an ECF online, attaching any evidence:
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/studentservices/contact-us/extcirc-form.aspx
The decisions on such ECF’s will be made by a committee chaired by the Senior Tutor
in the School of Mathematical Science.
In addition to the original copy of the final report, students are required to retain all
files used in the production of the final report in case the assessors request them. This
includes computer code to generate results, and all files and figures required to
produce the written report. These will not be assessed directly, but may be used to
verify the student’s work if the assessors require them. It is the student’s
responsibility to make sure they can supply these files if requested.
Plagiarism
You should be familiar with the MSc Student Handbook guidelines on plagiarism. In
particular, you should:
• Include on the title page of the final report a statement confirming that the
work is your own, apart from the acknowledged references.
• Acknowledge sources properly.
• Avoid extensive paraphrasing from sources.
You should be aware that ignorance of the plagiarism rules is no defence; it is up to
you to find out. If in doubt, consult your supervisor. You are strongly encouraged to
discuss regularly with your supervisor both the form and content of your final report.
The School will use the electronic file of your final report to compare it with
publicly available sources.
This will be done using the TurnitinUK software tool, which is available to students on
the Moodle page (under the University Resources). Please see the following link
https://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=140200
Assessment Criteria
The components contributing to the module mark are:
53.55%: Final report scientific content.
22.95%: Final report written presentation/introduction.
8.5%: Student initiative.
15%: Oral presentation.
The scientific content, written presentation and introduction are marked independently
by your supervisor and a second assessor.
The student initiative mark is a reward for making progress beyond your supervisor’s
suggestions. You are however entitled to help from your supervisor and your
supervisor will in any event expect to be kept up-to-date on your progress. You are
strongly advised to discuss your ideas and progress with your supervisor at all stages
of the work.
Detailed assessment criteria for the written report and for the oral presentation are
given at the end of the dissertation booklet.
Feedback on Dissertation
You will receive written feedback on your final report with your provisional marks, which
are emailed to you after the MSc Board of Examiners meeting that takes place in mid
to late October.
English Language Courses
The University of Nottingham runs courses on English through the Centre for English
Language Education (CELE), see their website http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/CELE/
These courses are free for overseas students whose native language is not English.
Information about participating has been circulated previously. All students whose
first language is NOT English are obliged to participate unless they have written
permission from their Course Director to be excluded from attending.
LaTeX
Training materials for using the mathematical typesetting system LaTeX will be
provided. Use of LaTeX is not mandatory, but is recommended.
Dissertation Write-Up Presentation
A short presentation, on Dissertation writing, will be provided to all MSc Students.
Reassessment Arrangements
Students who do not pass their Dissertation will be allowed to resubmit their final
report within 12 weeks of notification of the failure by the University. Such students
will be provided with written feedback on their first final report, together with a
written statement from their supervisor, advising areas of improvement. Students
should not expect to have regular supervision meetings or feedback from their
supervisor. Students are entitled to a single meeting with their supervisor to discuss
how they should improve their final report.
The full resit mark will consist only of the mark for the resubmitted final report.
Research Conduct and Ethics
All students and supervisors should be aware of and follow the University's Code of
Research Conduct and Research Ethics.
If you have any queries over ethics or research governance issues, please contact the
School Ethics Officer – see MSc Student Handbook.
Further Questions
For further questions, contact your supervisor. If this is not appropriate, contact the
MATH4062 Course Director, Dr Etienne Farcot, via etienne.farcot@nottingham.ac.uk.
MATH4062 (G14FMD)
Student final report assessment guidelines
When marking the student’s written final report, the supervisor and second assessor
are expected to return marks, with the indicated weightings, under the categories of
• Written presentation / Introduction (30%)
• Mathematical and computational content (70%) comprising:
% Category Comments
10% Technical
background
Use and interpretation of background
mathematical/computational/financial concepts;
if appropriate, use of a range of given reference materials
and of further reading.
20% Depth & progress (Written) Evidence of an appropriate amount of progress
made.
20% Understanding &
interpretation
Logical development and selection of relevant material;
Critical appraisal/interpretation of results in the context of
the dissertation;
Demonstration of deep understanding and interpretation of
all aspects of the material presented.
20% Development &
results
Use of specific mathematical/statistical/computational
techniques and/or mathematical/computing packages (as
appropriate) to develop models and/or produce “results”.
Furthermore, the Supervisor has to return a mark for
• Student initiative
Marks for each category should be provided on the University scale.
More detailed guidance for the individual categories and the overall mark is given
below.
Written presentation / Introduction (30%)
The written presentation is assessed with equal weights by Introduction, Structure
and Clarity and marked on the University scale. The relative weights of the elements
within “Structure” and within “Clarity” depend on the topic and will be determined by
the assessors.
Structure
1. Abstract
• States the topic(s) under investigation and main results or conclusions. Also
methods or approaches where appropriate.
• Informative, self-contained and concise.
2. Sectioning
• Report broken into sections of digestible length, using subsections and
appendices where appropriate.
• Text within sections appropriately broken into paragraphs.
• Sectioning effective in signposting the main aspects of the work.
3. Conclusions
• Summary of the results.
• Conclusions, with reflection and critical analysis.
• Results interpreted in the context of the project objectives where appropriate.
• Directions for further work indicated.
4. Other elements, expected to include:
• Title corresponds to content.
• Title page states author, date, University of Nottingham, module code and title
• Plagiarism disclaimer.
• Table of contents.
• Equations, figures, tables etc adequately and accurately cross-referenced.
• Captions to figures and tables appropriately informative.
• References, when appropriate for the topic, collected into a bibliography with a
standard format. Number and selection of the references and the manner of
citing references in the text appropriate for the topic.
0 – 29 Insufficient structure.
30 – 39 Rudimentary structure in place.
40 – 49 Basic structure in place.
50 – 59 Most structural elements in place.
60 – 69 All or almost all structural elements in place. Structure effective in signposting the
technical content.
70 – 79 Excellent, easy-to-follow structure. Evidence of self-confidence and independence
in the structural choices.
80+ Outstandingly well-structured report with substantial evidence of self-confidence
and independence in structural choices.
Clarity
1. How accurately and concisely does the text convey the meaning?
2. Appropriate use of technical versus non-technical style.
3. Grammar, punctuation and spelling. Proof-reading.
4. Technical production, including:
• Layout and typesetting: fonts, spacing, page breaks; page numbering; equation
typesetting.
• Technical production of figures, diagrams and tables where appropriate.
0 – 29 Very little of the report can be followed.
30 – 39 Some parts of the report can be followed.
40 – 49 A substantial part of the report can be followed.
50 – 59 Report readable without difficulty. Technical production is accurate and conforms
to the subject standards.
60 – 69 Report easy to read and in appropriate style. Technical production effective in
signposting the content.
70 – 79 Report outstandingly clear. Originality in style and technical production if
appropriate.
80+ Report exceptionally clear with substantial evidence of originality in style and
production.
Introduction
The introduction should include the following components:
• Background and context of the work;
• Aim of the work; Overview of the work;
• Statement of main achievements, results or conclusions;
• Structure of the report outlined.
A good introduction will cover the above points in a clear and concise manner with an
amount of depth appropriate to the topic.
After reading the Introduction, a reader (perhaps the external examiner) should be
able to answer the following questions:
(i) What is the background to the project?
(ii) What is the aim of the work?
(iii) What general methods/techniques have been used?
(iv) What are the main achievements, results or conclusions?
(v) Where in the report can details of each of the main achievements etc be
found?
0 – 29 None of the above questions (i)-(v) is answered.
30 – 39
The student shows a rudimentary grasp of the requirement of an
Introduction. The reader will obtain rudimentary answers to some of the
questions (i)–(v) which should go beyond that of a lay person.
40 – 49
The student shows a basic grasp of the requirements of an Introduction.
The reader will obtain basic answers to some of the questions (i)–(v).
50 – 59
The student shows a coherent grasp of the requirements of an Introduction.
Most of the five components are present.
The reader will obtain satisfactory answers to some of the questions (i)–(v).
60 – 69
The student shows an assured grasp of the requirements of an Introduction.
All five components are present.
The reader will obtain satisfactory answers to most of the questions (i)–(v).
70 – 79
The student shows a full grasp of the requirements of an Introduction.
All five components have been clearly and concisely covered to an
appropriate depth.
The reader will obtain clear and comprehensive answers to questions (i)–
(v).
80+
The student shows a full and substantial grasp of the requirements of an
Introduction. All five components have been covered outstandingly well and
in depth. The reader will obtain outstandingly clear and comprehensive
answers to questions (i)–(v).
Technical background (10%)
Is there evidence of the use and interpretation of appropriate background
mathematical/statistical/financial/computational concepts?
Is there evidence, if appropriate, of the use of a range of given reference material and
further reading at an appropriate level?
Has the student introduced, explained and used correctly technical terms and methods
appropriate to the topic?
0 – 29 Lack of evidence.
30 – 39 Rudimentary evidence, which should still go beyond that of a lay person.
40 – 49 Basic evidence.
50 – 59 Moderate evidence.
60 – 69 Significant evidence.
70 – 79 Substantial evidence.
80+ Exceptional evidence.
Depth and progress (20%)
Has the student made appropriate progress bearing in mind level, breadth and depth?
0 – 29 Insufficient progress.
30 – 39 Minimal but still detectable progress made.
40 – 49 Little progress made.
50 – 59 Moderate progress made.
60 – 69 Significant progress made.
70 – 79 Substantial progress made.
80+ Substantial progress made showing considerable insight and originality.
Understanding and interpretation (20%)
Is there evidence of logical development and selection of relevant material?
Does the student demonstrate understanding and interpretation of all aspects of the
material?
Is there evidence in the report that the student understands and can interpret what
they have done, by the use of suitable illustrative examples or other means?
0 – 29 Lack of evidence.
30 – 39 Rudimentary evidence, which should still go beyond that of a lay person.
40 – 49 Basic evidence.
50 – 59 Moderate evidence.
60 – 69 Significant evidence.
70 – 79 Substantial evidence.
80+ Exceptional evidence showing an outstanding level of understanding.
Development and results (20%)
Is there evidence of the use of specific mathematical/statistical/computational
techniques and/or mathematical/computing packages (as appropriate) to produce
“results”?
Has the student obtained sufficient results bearing in mind the nature of the topic?
Have the aims of the project/dissertation been met?
Is there evidence that the student has done more than simply regurgitated reference
material?
0 – 29 Lack of evidence.
30 –
39
Rudimentary evidence.
40 –
49
Basic evidence.
50 –
59
Moderate evidence.
60 –
69
Significant evidence.
70 –
79
Substantial evidence.
80+ Exceptional evidence.
Overall mark
When marking projects/dissertations it is often useful to think to oneself, what would
have to be done to raise the overall mark by, say 5 marks or into the next class. For
example, suppose that the overall mark is 67, what could the student have done
which would have raised the mark to 70? The same applies to each category.
Another way of viewing the overall mark is by the use of “buzzwords/phrases” to
reflect the different categories of marks.
The report shows that the
student’s understanding and
development of the topic is
In approaching the
topic the student
shows evidence of
Mistakes
0 – 29 Non-existent Lack of work Unsatisfactory progress
30 – 39 Unsound
Lack of
understanding
Several substantial
errors or little progress
40 – 49 Basically sound Basic skills
Some substantial errors
or little progress
50 – 59 Coherent & sound Accurate skills
A few substantial errors
as well as several
minor errors
60 – 69 Assured & competent Significant skills
Perhaps one substantial
error and/or several
minor errors
70 – 79 Highly competent Confidence
No substantial but
possibly a few minor
errors
80 – 89 Authoritative
Depth and
confidence
No substantial errors
but occasional minor
errors
90 – 100 Exemplary Mastery
No substantial errors
and no minor errors
Student Initiative (marked by supervisor only)
How does it contribute to the final report mark?
The supervisor and second assessor mark the final report. Only the supervisor’s final
report marksheet will include the Student Initiative mark together with a short
justification. The final report mark is then computed as follows:
final report mark =
(supervisor mark) + (2nd assessor mark)
2
⋅ 0.9+ (student initiative) ⋅ 0.1
What is it?
The student initiative mark assesses and acknowledges students’ proactive efforts and
contributions that align with and complement their supervisor’s suggestions and
guidance during their dissertation. Exclusively marked by the supervisor, this measure
recognises students’ independent thinking and accomplishments achieved without
direct input from the supervisor. Students should view this as an opportunity to
demonstrate their (guided) autonomy, self-motivation, self-direction, and/or
proactivity. A discussion at the beginning of the dissertation sets clear project-specific
expectations, thereby establishing the framework for the student initiative evaluation.
Actively encouraged by supervisors, students are expected to present relevant and
sensible suggestions for project development for discussion in supervision meetings.
It is important to note that students are entitled to seek help from their supervisor
and strongly encouraged to discuss their progress throughout the project with their
supervisor. Presenting ideas for feedback will not negatively impact the initiative
mark.
The student initiative mark can be used to confirm or adjust the final report mark
based on the supervisor's impression of the student's initiative. If the supervisor
believes that the final report mark accurately reflects the student's initiative, they can
assign the same mark. However, if they feel that the mark should be increased or
decreased, they have the flexibility to do so.
Tasks where initiative may be shown include:
1. Formulate the questions under investigation.
2. Find appropriate breadth and depth for the investigation.
3. Adjust the project considering progress made.
4. Devise original examples or applications.
5. Search and study the literature.
6. Find connections to related areas in mathematics and
beyond.
7. Formulate the conclusions.
8. Develop a personal viewpoint on the subject.
It is highly recommended that students openly discuss any personal or project-specific
concerns or uncertainties about the student initiative evaluation process with their
supervisor at the beginning of the dissertation. Open communication can help ensure
a successful and rewarding experience for both parties.
0 - 39 Negligible initiative.
40 - 49 Attempted initiative: student demonstrated limited initiative across a small
number of tasks.
50 - 59 Partial initiative: student demonstrated a moderate level of initiative across
a good number of tasks.
60 - 69 Substantial initiative: student exhibited considerable initiative across a
significant number of tasks.
70 - 79 Exceptional initiative: student exhibited very high levels of initiative across
almost all tasks.
80 + Outstanding initiative: student consistently exhibited the highest level of
initiative, demonstrating independent thinking and/or proactive problem-
solving across all tasks.
Student’s Oral Presentation Assessment Guidelines
Oral presentations are marked by two independent assessors, who will use the following
assessment sheet.
G14FMD Financial and Computational Mathematics Dissertation University of Nottingham
SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
Assessment Sheet for Oral Presentations
Project Time at start of talk: Time at end of talk: Length of talk:
Title of project: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Student: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 Overview Overall grade:A* A B C D E F U Comments
Clear introduction to talk
Clear outline of talk’s structure
Clear sectioning of body of talk
Clear summary and conclusions
Timing of talk
2 Presentation Overall grade:A* A B C D E F U Comments
Choice of slide background/layout
Good use of slide headings/titles
Good use of English on slides
Good choice of formulae displayed
Good use of diagrams
Legibility of text
Graphs - informative & relevant
Graphs - clear labels, titles, etc
3 Audience Awareness Overall grade:A* A B C D E F U Comments
Good use of visual aids
Careful use of technical vocabulary
Interaction with audience
Confident delivery
Suitable pacing of material
Evidence of careful preparation
Quality of responses to questions
4 Modelling Overall grade:A* A B C D E F U Comments
Grasp of underlying concepts
Assumptions properly described
Understanding of model
Relevance of results obtained
Due emphasis of important
5 Mathematical Content Overall grade:A* A B C D E F U Comments
Logical development, model7→soln
Understanding of solution methods
Quantity of work presented
Quality of work presented
Evidence of additional reading
General comments Overall Grade: %
Mark equivalents: A∗ = 100%; A = 75%; B = 65%; C = 55%; D = 45%; E = 35%; F = 25%; U = 0% (unclassified);
University Scale: class boundaries: A/B = borderline 1, B/C borderline 2:1, C/D borderline 2:2, D/E borderline 3.
Assessment
The project is assessed by a written final report (85%) and an oral presentation
(15%).
Written presentation: The report is required to be word processed, including
equations, with software of your choice. We recommend using to learn LaTeX (see
below) to write your report, but you do not have to use LaTeX. Unless the scientific
content strongly justifies otherwise, the length should normally be between 60 and 90
pages in total, including any appendices, in double-spaced 12-point font with left,
right, top, and bottom margins of at least 2.5cm. A final report exceeding 90 pages by
up to 5 pages will incur an overall 5% penalty of the maximum mark. Excess length
above this will incur a 10% penalty.
A student who wishes to exceed the page limit without penalty should make a written
case to the Dissertations Officer johannes.hofscheier@nottingham.ac.uk no later than
seven calendar days before the hand-in deadline. Permission to exceed the page limit
will only be granted in exceptional circumstances (e.g., tables of data collected during
the project, on which the work is based; listings of computer programs written for the
project; etc.).
Attempts to circumvent the maximum length by reduced spacing and/or margins will
be penalised.
Oral presentation: during the last two weeks of the Dissertation period you are
required to give a short presentation, of approximately 15 minutes, on your work and
to answer questions. The talk should be aimed at an audience of MSc Students, who
will have a reasonable background but will be unfamiliar with your particular topic.
The presentation will be conducted online; further details will be provided by the
module convenor at the beginning of August.
The dissertation is worth 60 credits. You are expected to put into the project an
amount of work comparable to that of taking a semester’s lecture courses. The final
report is your evidence of this work.
You should discuss the plan of your report with your supervisor before you begin to
write it. You are also encouraged to give your supervisor one draft of the report. Your
supervisor is not expected to read the draft in detail but can give general feedback.
Other staff members (such as your Personal Tutor) are not expected to read drafts or
provide other extensive help. You are also encouraged to discuss your oral
presentation with the supervisor.
Submission of Final Report
You need to submit a pdf of your report via the submission link on Moodle, on or
before the deadline shown above.
If your final report is submitted late without good cause, your report mark will be
reduced by 5 marks per working day on the standard University scale. If the report is
twenty or more working days late, you will receive a report mark of zero. If, because
of extenuating circumstances, you need extra time to complete your final report, then
you should complete an ECF online, attaching any evidence:
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/studentservices/contact-us/extcirc-form.aspx
The decisions on such ECF’s will be made by a committee chaired by the Senior Tutor
in the School of Mathematical Science.
In addition to the original copy of the final report, students are required to retain all
files used in the production of the final report in case the assessors request them. This
includes computer code to generate results, and all files and figures required to
produce the written report. These will not be assessed directly, but may be used to
verify the student’s work if the assessors require them. It is the student’s
responsibility to make sure they can supply these files if requested.
Plagiarism
You should be familiar with the MSc Student Handbook guidelines on plagiarism. In
particular, you should:
• Include on the title page of the final report a statement confirming that the
work is your own, apart from the acknowledged references.
• Acknowledge sources properly.
• Avoid extensive paraphrasing from sources.
You should be aware that ignorance of the plagiarism rules is no defence; it is up to
you to find out. If in doubt, consult your supervisor. You are strongly encouraged to
discuss regularly with your supervisor both the form and content of your final report.
The School will use the electronic file of your final report to compare it with
publicly available sources.
This will be done using the TurnitinUK software tool, which is available to students on
the Moodle page (under the University Resources). Please see the following link
https://moodle.nottingham.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=140200
Assessment Criteria
The components contributing to the module mark are:
53.55%: Final report scientific content.
22.95%: Final report written presentation/introduction.
8.5%: Student initiative.
15%: Oral presentation.
The scientific content, written presentation and introduction are marked independently
by your supervisor and a second assessor.
The student initiative mark is a reward for making progress beyond your supervisor’s
suggestions. You are however entitled to help from your supervisor and your
supervisor will in any event expect to be kept up-to-date on your progress. You are
strongly advised to discuss your ideas and progress with your supervisor at all stages
of the work.
Detailed assessment criteria for the written report and for the oral presentation are
given at the end of the dissertation booklet.
Feedback on Dissertation
You will receive written feedback on your final report with your provisional marks, which
are emailed to you after the MSc Board of Examiners meeting that takes place in mid
to late October.
English Language Courses
The University of Nottingham runs courses on English through the Centre for English
Language Education (CELE), see their website http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/CELE/
These courses are free for overseas students whose native language is not English.
Information about participating has been circulated previously. All students whose
first language is NOT English are obliged to participate unless they have written
permission from their Course Director to be excluded from attending.
LaTeX
Training materials for using the mathematical typesetting system LaTeX will be
provided. Use of LaTeX is not mandatory, but is recommended.
Dissertation Write-Up Presentation
A short presentation, on Dissertation writing, will be provided to all MSc Students.
Reassessment Arrangements
Students who do not pass their Dissertation will be allowed to resubmit their final
report within 12 weeks of notification of the failure by the University. Such students
will be provided with written feedback on their first final report, together with a
written statement from their supervisor, advising areas of improvement. Students
should not expect to have regular supervision meetings or feedback from their
supervisor. Students are entitled to a single meeting with their supervisor to discuss
how they should improve their final report.
The full resit mark will consist only of the mark for the resubmitted final report.
Research Conduct and Ethics
All students and supervisors should be aware of and follow the University's Code of
Research Conduct and Research Ethics.
If you have any queries over ethics or research governance issues, please contact the
School Ethics Officer – see MSc Student Handbook.
Further Questions
For further questions, contact your supervisor. If this is not appropriate, contact the
MATH4062 Course Director, Dr Etienne Farcot, via etienne.farcot@nottingham.ac.uk.
MATH4062 (G14FMD)
Student final report assessment guidelines
When marking the student’s written final report, the supervisor and second assessor
are expected to return marks, with the indicated weightings, under the categories of
• Written presentation / Introduction (30%)
• Mathematical and computational content (70%) comprising:
% Category Comments
10% Technical
background
Use and interpretation of background
mathematical/computational/financial concepts;
if appropriate, use of a range of given reference materials
and of further reading.
20% Depth & progress (Written) Evidence of an appropriate amount of progress
made.
20% Understanding &
interpretation
Logical development and selection of relevant material;
Critical appraisal/interpretation of results in the context of
the dissertation;
Demonstration of deep understanding and interpretation of
all aspects of the material presented.
20% Development &
results
Use of specific mathematical/statistical/computational
techniques and/or mathematical/computing packages (as
appropriate) to develop models and/or produce “results”.
Furthermore, the Supervisor has to return a mark for
• Student initiative
Marks for each category should be provided on the University scale.
More detailed guidance for the individual categories and the overall mark is given
below.
Written presentation / Introduction (30%)
The written presentation is assessed with equal weights by Introduction, Structure
and Clarity and marked on the University scale. The relative weights of the elements
within “Structure” and within “Clarity” depend on the topic and will be determined by
the assessors.
Structure
1. Abstract
• States the topic(s) under investigation and main results or conclusions. Also
methods or approaches where appropriate.
• Informative, self-contained and concise.
2. Sectioning
• Report broken into sections of digestible length, using subsections and
appendices where appropriate.
• Text within sections appropriately broken into paragraphs.
• Sectioning effective in signposting the main aspects of the work.
3. Conclusions
• Summary of the results.
• Conclusions, with reflection and critical analysis.
• Results interpreted in the context of the project objectives where appropriate.
• Directions for further work indicated.
4. Other elements, expected to include:
• Title corresponds to content.
• Title page states author, date, University of Nottingham, module code and title
• Plagiarism disclaimer.
• Table of contents.
• Equations, figures, tables etc adequately and accurately cross-referenced.
• Captions to figures and tables appropriately informative.
• References, when appropriate for the topic, collected into a bibliography with a
standard format. Number and selection of the references and the manner of
citing references in the text appropriate for the topic.
0 – 29 Insufficient structure.
30 – 39 Rudimentary structure in place.
40 – 49 Basic structure in place.
50 – 59 Most structural elements in place.
60 – 69 All or almost all structural elements in place. Structure effective in signposting the
technical content.
70 – 79 Excellent, easy-to-follow structure. Evidence of self-confidence and independence
in the structural choices.
80+ Outstandingly well-structured report with substantial evidence of self-confidence
and independence in structural choices.
Clarity
1. How accurately and concisely does the text convey the meaning?
2. Appropriate use of technical versus non-technical style.
3. Grammar, punctuation and spelling. Proof-reading.
4. Technical production, including:
• Layout and typesetting: fonts, spacing, page breaks; page numbering; equation
typesetting.
• Technical production of figures, diagrams and tables where appropriate.
0 – 29 Very little of the report can be followed.
30 – 39 Some parts of the report can be followed.
40 – 49 A substantial part of the report can be followed.
50 – 59 Report readable without difficulty. Technical production is accurate and conforms
to the subject standards.
60 – 69 Report easy to read and in appropriate style. Technical production effective in
signposting the content.
70 – 79 Report outstandingly clear. Originality in style and technical production if
appropriate.
80+ Report exceptionally clear with substantial evidence of originality in style and
production.
Introduction
The introduction should include the following components:
• Background and context of the work;
• Aim of the work; Overview of the work;
• Statement of main achievements, results or conclusions;
• Structure of the report outlined.
A good introduction will cover the above points in a clear and concise manner with an
amount of depth appropriate to the topic.
After reading the Introduction, a reader (perhaps the external examiner) should be
able to answer the following questions:
(i) What is the background to the project?
(ii) What is the aim of the work?
(iii) What general methods/techniques have been used?
(iv) What are the main achievements, results or conclusions?
(v) Where in the report can details of each of the main achievements etc be
found?
0 – 29 None of the above questions (i)-(v) is answered.
30 – 39
The student shows a rudimentary grasp of the requirement of an
Introduction. The reader will obtain rudimentary answers to some of the
questions (i)–(v) which should go beyond that of a lay person.
40 – 49
The student shows a basic grasp of the requirements of an Introduction.
The reader will obtain basic answers to some of the questions (i)–(v).
50 – 59
The student shows a coherent grasp of the requirements of an Introduction.
Most of the five components are present.
The reader will obtain satisfactory answers to some of the questions (i)–(v).
60 – 69
The student shows an assured grasp of the requirements of an Introduction.
All five components are present.
The reader will obtain satisfactory answers to most of the questions (i)–(v).
70 – 79
The student shows a full grasp of the requirements of an Introduction.
All five components have been clearly and concisely covered to an
appropriate depth.
The reader will obtain clear and comprehensive answers to questions (i)–
(v).
80+
The student shows a full and substantial grasp of the requirements of an
Introduction. All five components have been covered outstandingly well and
in depth. The reader will obtain outstandingly clear and comprehensive
answers to questions (i)–(v).
Technical background (10%)
Is there evidence of the use and interpretation of appropriate background
mathematical/statistical/financial/computational concepts?
Is there evidence, if appropriate, of the use of a range of given reference material and
further reading at an appropriate level?
Has the student introduced, explained and used correctly technical terms and methods
appropriate to the topic?
0 – 29 Lack of evidence.
30 – 39 Rudimentary evidence, which should still go beyond that of a lay person.
40 – 49 Basic evidence.
50 – 59 Moderate evidence.
60 – 69 Significant evidence.
70 – 79 Substantial evidence.
80+ Exceptional evidence.
Depth and progress (20%)
Has the student made appropriate progress bearing in mind level, breadth and depth?
0 – 29 Insufficient progress.
30 – 39 Minimal but still detectable progress made.
40 – 49 Little progress made.
50 – 59 Moderate progress made.
60 – 69 Significant progress made.
70 – 79 Substantial progress made.
80+ Substantial progress made showing considerable insight and originality.
Understanding and interpretation (20%)
Is there evidence of logical development and selection of relevant material?
Does the student demonstrate understanding and interpretation of all aspects of the
material?
Is there evidence in the report that the student understands and can interpret what
they have done, by the use of suitable illustrative examples or other means?
0 – 29 Lack of evidence.
30 – 39 Rudimentary evidence, which should still go beyond that of a lay person.
40 – 49 Basic evidence.
50 – 59 Moderate evidence.
60 – 69 Significant evidence.
70 – 79 Substantial evidence.
80+ Exceptional evidence showing an outstanding level of understanding.
Development and results (20%)
Is there evidence of the use of specific mathematical/statistical/computational
techniques and/or mathematical/computing packages (as appropriate) to produce
“results”?
Has the student obtained sufficient results bearing in mind the nature of the topic?
Have the aims of the project/dissertation been met?
Is there evidence that the student has done more than simply regurgitated reference
material?
0 – 29 Lack of evidence.
30 –
39
Rudimentary evidence.
40 –
49
Basic evidence.
50 –
59
Moderate evidence.
60 –
69
Significant evidence.
70 –
79
Substantial evidence.
80+ Exceptional evidence.
Overall mark
When marking projects/dissertations it is often useful to think to oneself, what would
have to be done to raise the overall mark by, say 5 marks or into the next class. For
example, suppose that the overall mark is 67, what could the student have done
which would have raised the mark to 70? The same applies to each category.
Another way of viewing the overall mark is by the use of “buzzwords/phrases” to
reflect the different categories of marks.
The report shows that the
student’s understanding and
development of the topic is
In approaching the
topic the student
shows evidence of
Mistakes
0 – 29 Non-existent Lack of work Unsatisfactory progress
30 – 39 Unsound
Lack of
understanding
Several substantial
errors or little progress
40 – 49 Basically sound Basic skills
Some substantial errors
or little progress
50 – 59 Coherent & sound Accurate skills
A few substantial errors
as well as several
minor errors
60 – 69 Assured & competent Significant skills
Perhaps one substantial
error and/or several
minor errors
70 – 79 Highly competent Confidence
No substantial but
possibly a few minor
errors
80 – 89 Authoritative
Depth and
confidence
No substantial errors
but occasional minor
errors
90 – 100 Exemplary Mastery
No substantial errors
and no minor errors
Student Initiative (marked by supervisor only)
How does it contribute to the final report mark?
The supervisor and second assessor mark the final report. Only the supervisor’s final
report marksheet will include the Student Initiative mark together with a short
justification. The final report mark is then computed as follows:
final report mark =
(supervisor mark) + (2nd assessor mark)
2
⋅ 0.9+ (student initiative) ⋅ 0.1
What is it?
The student initiative mark assesses and acknowledges students’ proactive efforts and
contributions that align with and complement their supervisor’s suggestions and
guidance during their dissertation. Exclusively marked by the supervisor, this measure
recognises students’ independent thinking and accomplishments achieved without
direct input from the supervisor. Students should view this as an opportunity to
demonstrate their (guided) autonomy, self-motivation, self-direction, and/or
proactivity. A discussion at the beginning of the dissertation sets clear project-specific
expectations, thereby establishing the framework for the student initiative evaluation.
Actively encouraged by supervisors, students are expected to present relevant and
sensible suggestions for project development for discussion in supervision meetings.
It is important to note that students are entitled to seek help from their supervisor
and strongly encouraged to discuss their progress throughout the project with their
supervisor. Presenting ideas for feedback will not negatively impact the initiative
mark.
The student initiative mark can be used to confirm or adjust the final report mark
based on the supervisor's impression of the student's initiative. If the supervisor
believes that the final report mark accurately reflects the student's initiative, they can
assign the same mark. However, if they feel that the mark should be increased or
decreased, they have the flexibility to do so.
Tasks where initiative may be shown include:
1. Formulate the questions under investigation.
2. Find appropriate breadth and depth for the investigation.
3. Adjust the project considering progress made.
4. Devise original examples or applications.
5. Search and study the literature.
6. Find connections to related areas in mathematics and
beyond.
7. Formulate the conclusions.
8. Develop a personal viewpoint on the subject.
It is highly recommended that students openly discuss any personal or project-specific
concerns or uncertainties about the student initiative evaluation process with their
supervisor at the beginning of the dissertation. Open communication can help ensure
a successful and rewarding experience for both parties.
0 - 39 Negligible initiative.
40 - 49 Attempted initiative: student demonstrated limited initiative across a small
number of tasks.
50 - 59 Partial initiative: student demonstrated a moderate level of initiative across
a good number of tasks.
60 - 69 Substantial initiative: student exhibited considerable initiative across a
significant number of tasks.
70 - 79 Exceptional initiative: student exhibited very high levels of initiative across
almost all tasks.
80 + Outstanding initiative: student consistently exhibited the highest level of
initiative, demonstrating independent thinking and/or proactive problem-
solving across all tasks.
Student’s Oral Presentation Assessment Guidelines
Oral presentations are marked by two independent assessors, who will use the following
assessment sheet.
G14FMD Financial and Computational Mathematics Dissertation University of Nottingham
SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
Assessment Sheet for Oral Presentations
Project Time at start of talk: Time at end of talk: Length of talk:
Title of project: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Student: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 Overview Overall grade:A* A B C D E F U Comments
Clear introduction to talk
Clear outline of talk’s structure
Clear sectioning of body of talk
Clear summary and conclusions
Timing of talk
2 Presentation Overall grade:A* A B C D E F U Comments
Choice of slide background/layout
Good use of slide headings/titles
Good use of English on slides
Good choice of formulae displayed
Good use of diagrams
Legibility of text
Graphs - informative & relevant
Graphs - clear labels, titles, etc
3 Audience Awareness Overall grade:A* A B C D E F U Comments
Good use of visual aids
Careful use of technical vocabulary
Interaction with audience
Confident delivery
Suitable pacing of material
Evidence of careful preparation
Quality of responses to questions
4 Modelling Overall grade:A* A B C D E F U Comments
Grasp of underlying concepts
Assumptions properly described
Understanding of model
Relevance of results obtained
Due emphasis of important
5 Mathematical Content Overall grade:A* A B C D E F U Comments
Logical development, model7→soln
Understanding of solution methods
Quantity of work presented
Quality of work presented
Evidence of additional reading
General comments Overall Grade: %
Mark equivalents: A∗ = 100%; A = 75%; B = 65%; C = 55%; D = 45%; E = 35%; F = 25%; U = 0% (unclassified);
University Scale: class boundaries: A/B = borderline 1, B/C borderline 2:1, C/D borderline 2:2, D/E borderline 3.
