CSC 590 Lecture Notes Week 4
Discussion of Assignment 2



  1. Discussion of of Assignment 2

    1. Evaluate 2 MS theses:

      1. one from Cal Poly

      2. one from another university

    2. Use Cal Poly thesis evaluation criteria, discussed below.

    3. Submit two evaluations via email 7PM Monday 13 May; details in assignment 2 writeup


  2. Problem definition.

    1. Rate whether the problem(s) addressed by the thesis are well defined.

    2. To justify your rating, summarize what the problem(s) is (are).

      1. If you cannot readily do this, say so.

      2. Not being able to summarize the problems is justification for a low score on this criterion.

    3. To critique this aspect of the thesis, indicate whether or not the thesis delivers a good solution to the problem(s) it purports to solve.

    4. Justify this critique by citing specific parts of the thesis that make it clear how the problems are in fact solved.


  3. Writing quality.

    1. This is a general evaluation of the writing quality.

    2. Presumably there should be no problems in spelling or grammar, but definitely say so if there are.

    3. There are a vast number of ways to evaluate writing quality.

      1. One of the most important writing qualities for a thesis is clarity of presentation.

      2. For this critique, focus on this aspect of the writing, and justify your critique as follows:
        • cite one or two well-written passages, and explain how the passage adds to the clarity of the presentation (if there are zero well-written passages, say so)
        • cite one or two poorly-written passages, and explain how the passage detracts from the clarity of the presentation (if there are zero poorly-written passages, say so)


  4. Contribution to the state-of-the-art in the field.

    1. Does this thesis advance the state of the art in its specific area?

    2. Justify your evaluation by summarizing precisely how it does so, or if it does not, how it falls short.

    3. An important measure to justify a thesis' contribution to the state of the art is how thoroughly it cites related work.

      1. The thesis should include a thorough comparative analysis, where it compares and contrasts key related work to that of the thesis.

      2. In your critique of this "contribution" criterion, include a discussion of the following points regarding related work:
        • Are there an ample number of related works cited?
        • Does the thesis do a good job in comparing and contrasting its contributions to the related work?


  5. Originality and innovativeness.

    1. Is the work presented in the thesis original and/or innovative?

    2. Justify your evaluation by summarizing in what ways it is or is not.

      1. You should be able to identify one or a few new ideas that the thesis contains.

      2. If you cannot do so, then a low score is appropriate for this criterion.


  6. Technical depth

    1. The technical depth of a thesis varies based on its type.

      1. If it is experimental, then the experiment should be asking a hard and important question, and use rigorous techniques to analyze the experimental results.

      2. If it is a project, then it should involve non-trivial specification, design, and implementation techniques to complete.

      3. If it is theoretical, then it should use rigorous techniques to prove its results.

      4. If it is a survey, it should provide in-depth coverage and critical analysis of the material it surveys.

    2. Justify your evaluation here by citing specific parts of the thesis where the technical depth is achieved.


  7. Implementation of technical content

    1. As footnoted in the attached sheet, implementation is also type-specific.

    2. I.e., it's

      1. the conduct of the experiment for an experimental thesis;

      2. the program design and implementation for a project;

      3. the presentation of proof and/or argumentation for a theoretical thesis;

      4. some suitable interpretation for another type of thesis.

    3. As with technical depth, justify by citing specific parts of the thesis where the implementation is presented.


  8. Validation of the work, as appropriate to the subject matter.

    1. Validation is a third type-specific evaluation criterion.

      1. For an experiment, the thesis should compare its results to the work of others in the field, and verify that its results are significant.

      2. For a project, the thesis must validate that the implementation works, including with usage studies if appropriate.

      3. For theoretical work, the proof must be complete and correct.

      4. For a survey, the critical analysis must be cogent, and backed by a substantial number of references to the literature.

    2. Justify your evaluation here by citing specific parts of the thesis where the validation appears.


  9. Potential for publication

    1. Based on your reading and knowledge in the area, do you think the work of the thesis has potential for publication?

    2. If so, for what specific conference(s) (most likely) or journal(s) (perhaps) is it suited?

    3. Justify your evaluation by referring as appropriate to the critique points you have already made.


  10. Potential for future research

    1. Does the work of thesis provide a platform for future research or development?

    2. If so, summarize what this would be.

    3. If not, say why.


  11. Overall quality of the thesis

    1. Summarize the results of the preceding critiques in one or a few sentences that sum up what you think of the thesis overall.



index | lectures | info | examples | reference