Registration of a master thesis

Title (short please!)
Title German

Munich University of Applied Sciences (MUAS)
Master’s Program Computational Engineering (TBM)

Student:	Dipl.-Ing.(FH) First + Last Name B.Eng. B.Sc. M.Sc. M.Eng. Matriculation number.: Date and place of birth:
Main supervisor MUAS:	Prof. Dr.-Ing. ? / Studiengang TBM
Second supervisor:	Prof. Dr.-Ing. ?
Supervisor from industry or research organization	Degree first + last name Company Department Address E-Mail Phone

Date: select date

Note:	The following Section 3 (objectives) is to be copied verbatim into the report to be submitted for evaluation into the chapter "objectives" or the Annex. Therefore, please make sure that the following text is worded in a manner suitable for publication! Deviations from these objectives must be stated and justified in the report.

Note:	Coordinate the contents with supervisors, have this form signed by the examiners and send it signed as a PDF file with an informal application to the chairman(s) of the examination board by e-mail.

Background information

Insert here a short description of the background and motivation of the work.

Task to be processed

Describe here what is to be treated / worked on in the context of the work.

Objectives to be achieved

Literature research on the state of research and technology of the topic of the Master's thesis, including scientific analysis and discussion of this research in the report

... formulate further measurable, technical sub-goals as a list with bullet points

…

…

Public presentation (approx. 30-45 minutes presentation + approx. 15 minutes discussion)

Compilation in a comprehensible report in German or English language (approx. 50-100 pages, plus appendix if necessary)

Work plan and specifications/data to be provided

…. Enumeration of the rough planning either with bullet points or diagram

The task setter provides the following for the work:

Models, data, test specimens, software, facilities etc., with required provision date(s), must be listed here !!

Documents to be used, literature

Heesen, Bernd (2014) Wissenschaftliches Arbeiten, 3. Auflage, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer

Gabler Kremer, Bruno (2006) Vom Referat bis zur Examensarbeit, Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer

….list other documents/literature already known or available to be used

Miscellaneous

The report is to be submitted in duplicate in printed and bound form for the examination for first and second examiners and additionally in digital form (PDF) for assessment. Software is to be submitted as commented source code or in a comparable verifiable form (e.g. native data formats Excel, Matlab. etc.). Reference literature, if available in digital form (e.g. PDF), must also be submitted with the report.

For a grade entry in the current semester, it is necessary to submit the written report including giving the presentation until the last day of the examination of the respective semester, since in addition to the correction, the administrative process must also be handled by the examination board. If the paper is submitted later, there is no guarantee that the grade will be available at the Examinations Office in time for the semester. The date for the colloquium must also be agreed with the supervisors before the end of the examination period.

Copyrights, rights to publish the written work remain with the author.

Without written approval by the author, the supervising company and the first supervisor of the university, no work will be placed in the university library. A form for the publishing agreement can be found on the homepage of the library of the Munich University of Applied Sciences. Suitable and approved master theses will be published in the online portal HM-Digital.

The regulations of the applicable General Study and Examination Regulations (ASPO), the Study and Examination Regulations (SPO) of the Master's program or the Framework Examination Regulations of the Munich University of Applied Sciences (RaPO) must be observed. This applies in particular to any necessary transfer for examination purposes or the regulations on the obligation to retain documents. For example, the Master's thesis must be presented and discussed by the students in a public colloquium. In addition, the written work must be read and discussed by several examiners, not mentioned here either, if necessary. This also applies to possible plagiarism examinations or the accreditation of the program.

The written elaborations of the Master's thesis must be fully comprehensible. The following are therefore not permitted:

incomplete information on specifications, data and information used

the indication of falsified results (blackened tables/diagrams, text passages)

without specification of reference values normalized results

no referencing of used data

no quoting of third party results

not sufficiently commented Source codes for software

For self-monitoring, evaluation criteria in the following table are helpful for orientation:

Subgrade	5	4	3	2	1
Grading report (80%):
Technical processing Degree of performance	Inadequate processing, only solution approaches	Incompletely solved Defined/achievable goals hardly achieved/ processed	Basically solved Solutions critically analyzed Satisfactory professional assessment	Good to very good solubility or non-solubility proven	Outstandingly solved If necessary with predicate value, additional aspects processed
Expert knowledge	Little knowledge of the state of the art	Insufficient Patchy Faulty executions	Average Moderate gaps in expertise Partial errors	Good basic and detailed knowledge, Few errors during application	Outstanding, comprehensive knowledge Justifications delivered comprehensively Error-free
Level of difficulty	Average	Sophisticated	Very demanding
Use of methods and tools	Planless approach Goal-oriented working method hardly recognizable	Below average Incomplete or poorly displayed Simple applications No validation	Seemingly error-free but not necessarily comprehensible to the reader	Competent, sophisticated program use or methodology Familiarized with the necessary theory and its presentation Results validated in approaches	Comprehensive, professional, possibly with own extensions Very good, fully presented methods, Results very well validated
Creativity Own ideas Innovative considerations	No own ideas Unable to transfer known solutions to new situations	Not visible Only rudimentary use of known solutions	Practically only known ideas used, but recognizably partly incorrectly or not purposefully used	Known ideas used and applied in a goal-oriented manner In addition, own ideas developed and implemented with low error rates	Own ideas developed and implemented without errors New successful or promising approaches developed/tried/verified/validated
Clarity of the representations Systematics	No recognizable systematic	Significant shortcomings in the systematic approach	Partially incomplete Systematics worthy of improvement	Completely represented and meaningful systematics Well comprehensible	Compact/efficient, yet complete and easy to understand System clearly recognizable, goal-oriented and appropriate to the task
Documentation, Creative Execution Citation style Language	Significant deficiencies in the documentation Confused Incomplete	Sufficient documentation Traceable	Average Average language Usual styling Sensible structure Formal errors	Few formal and linguistic errors Attractive form of text, tables and pictures Good language style Clear and understand-able Illustrations (not just cut /paste)	Error-free Perfect language Comprehensive, very good design (texts, illustrations, tables, appendices, ...) Own representations/ illustrations
Literature research	Hardly any literature	Too little references Too many web links Hardly any relevant contextual reference Randomly appearing references	Existing, but too superficial Textbooks Little scientific papers Hardly any evaluation of the literature in the text of the work	Comprehensive, proper references (primary and secondary literature, text books, scientific papers) But not fully evaluated and assessed	Comprehensive research and evaluation Scientific papers Provides an overview of the topic of the work Very good processing of references in the work
Grading presentation 30 minutes (20%):
Presentation style Compact/clear presentation/language	Average	Fluent, free, complete, clear, visual contact but without conviction and presented in an emotionless way	Fluent, free, complete, clear, visual contact, lively/convincing/excitingly presented Pick up/motivate the listeners for the topic
Slides Presentation media	Average	Partly faulty but overall good	Clearly arranged, labeled/well readable diagrams and graphics, well chosen structure and layout
Discussion	Too little concrete response to questions Many mistakes	Errors Questions only insufficiently addressed	Partially incomplete answers but overall well prepared	Competent, authentic, honest, error-free and concrete in the answers

Student: Date, Signature

Main supervisor: Date, Signature

Second supervisor: Date, Signature

When a company is working on a task or accompanies the work:

We have taken note of the task, especially the instructions under 4 and 6 and will support the student according to these requirements.

Last name, first name, company/research institution:	Date, Signature

Approval by the examination board:

.

Examination board: Last name, first name	Date, Signature

Full-time studies Part-time studies

The work must be submitted in accordance with the valid SPO by select date.

In the event of unforeseeable delays, a written request (e-mail) must be sent to the first supervisor, stating the reasons for a necessary extension of the deadline, and his/her written consent to the extension must be obtained before the deadline expires.