Faculty of Business
Administration
Master’s Thesis Evaluation by the
Title of the Master’s Thesis:
Author of the Master’s Thesis:
Goals of the Master’s Thesis:
Evaluation
Criteria Description Max.
points Points
Content 70%
Output Quality
Results are well presented, discussed - substantiated, relevant and original (i.e. novelty produ- ced by the author). They are of high practical/theoretical relevance.20
Goals
The goals of the thesis are evident and accomplished.10
Opponent
The pandemic’s impact on the young people's well-being
Bc. Tatiana Gudkova
The objective of the thesis is to explore how young people living in the Czech Republic perceived their well-being during self-isolation due to COVID19. This work aims to identify the influence of self-isolation on young people’s mental health, outline the main stressors and emotions as well as common coping strategies of the respondents.
16
8
The goals are evident and partly accomplished. We cannot generalizeresults to the group of young people in Czech Republic.
I appreciate topicality of the thesis. The author provides an interesting insight into the perception of pandemic from students perspective.
Recommendations drawn from the findings have practical relevance.
Results are well-presented, nevertheless I missed discussion/comparison at the end of the thesis.
Criteria Description Max.
points Points
Content 70%
Methodology
Methods are adequate and used correctly in relation to pre-set goals.20
Theory/ Con-
ceptualizatio 20
Formal requirements 15%
Structure
The thesis is a consistent, well-organised logical whole.3
Terminology
Linguistic and terminological level.4
Formalities
Formal layout and requirements, extent, abstract.4
Demonstration of an in-depth understanding of the topic area (state-of-the-art) including key concepts, terminology, theories, definitions, etc. based on a literature survey. Literature review.
The student demonstrated very good command of the relevant literature and understanding of the appropriate theoretical framework. Concepts were chosen appropriately but I missed more articulated connections among them.
The thesis is consistent, the theoretical part provides a sufficient base for the empirical part.
Lingustic and terminological level is appropriate, I found just minor imperfections.
Formal layout and extent of the thesis are appropriate.
16
17
3
3
4
Methods were chosen and applied appropriately. I also positively evaluatethe combination of secondary and primary research. Nevertheless I missed information which should be a part of a systematic review. The secondary research as presented in the thesis looks more like a random example of some studies to compare with the results from interviews the author conducted than a systematic review. The procedure used in thematic analysis has been done appropriately, but analysis itself seems to be rather shallow. Results are more descriptive than analytical.
Criteria Description Max.
points Points
Formal requirements 15%
Citing
Quality of citations and reflection of Ephorus results.4
Delivery 15%
Presentation document
Is the presentation itself structured in a clear way? Is it appealing and easy to follow? Does it
convey the message efficiently?
5
Presentation skills
Are you conveying the message efficiently and timely? Do you use appropriate words, speed, tone of voice, gestures, movement etc. to express your thoughts in a clear manner?
5
Argumentation
Are you able to readily and briskly react to questions or comments? Are you able to explain unclear parts and connect comments to relevant places in your presentation or parts of particu- lar analyses? How well are you able to defend to your ideas and recommendations?5
Total of points
Citing is fine.
4
Other comments:
Questions or comments to be discussed during the thesis defence:
Name of the
The employer of the
Date Signature
I missed the discussion and comparison of findings from interviews with results of the systematic review. Can you compare your findings with the research studies you have found through the systematic review? What have surprised you most in interviews?
Doc. PhDr. Daniela Pauknerová, Ph.D.
Prague University of Economics and Business
29.1.2022
Opponent
Opponent
