100% found this document useful (1 vote)
1K views4 pages

UDM Final Defense Score Sheet

This document contains forms used to evaluate students' final defenses of their research or capstone projects at the University of Manila College of Engineering and Technology. The forms include a score sheet to rate the quality of students' manuscripts and developed systems, an individual oral examination grading rubric, a final grade summary sheet, and an evaluation sheet for additional comments. Scores are calculated in various categories to determine an overall final grade and recommendation of approved, approved with revisions, or disapproved.

Uploaded by

Mark Leo De Asis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (1 vote)
1K views4 pages

UDM Final Defense Score Sheet

This document contains forms used to evaluate students' final defenses of their research or capstone projects at the University of Manila College of Engineering and Technology. The forms include a score sheet to rate the quality of students' manuscripts and developed systems, an individual oral examination grading rubric, a final grade summary sheet, and an evaluation sheet for additional comments. Scores are calculated in various categories to determine an overall final grade and recommendation of approved, approved with revisions, or disapproved.

Uploaded by

Mark Leo De Asis
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

UNIVERSIDAD DE MANILA

One Mehan Gardens Arroceros St., Manila

College of Engineering and Technology


Final Defense Score Sheet

Proponent(s): ___ Sem. A.Y. 20__- 20__


A. ____________________________________________ Degree:
B. ____________________________________________ ____________________________________
C. ____________________________________________ College:
D. ____________________________________________ ____________________________________
E. ____________________________________________ Name of Adviser:
____________________________________
Proposed Title:

Quality of Manuscript – 30%

Particulars Points Rating


Initial Pages
• Table of contents is consistent
• Acknowledgement is brief and formal 2
• Abstract is brief but complete
Chapter I
• Introduction is intact and provides clear overview of the entire
Thesis / Capstone Project
3
• Statement of the Problem/ Objects is SMART
• Scope and Limitation of the Research / Capstone Project are
clearly defined
Chapter II
• Related literatures are recent and relevant
• Anchor provides solid background of the Research / Capstone
Project 5
• Auxiliary theories are evident
• Sources are appropriately cited and noted
• Related studies are relevant and includes global and local scope
Chapter III
• There should be comprehensive discussions on the technologies
(hardware/software) involved in the Research / Capstone Project 3
and its related Research / Capstone Projects in the past

Chapter IV
• Methodology strictly follows the SDLC (esp. for Software
Development)
• Methodology includes project management techniques
appropriate for the chosen Research / Capstone Project.
10
• Requirements Specification is more or less complete and answers
the objectives
• Design Tools used are relevant and appropriate which should be
based on requirements
• Development Plan is concrete and should be consistent with the
Design
• Testing techniques to be used should assess all aspects of the
developed Research/ Capstone Project
• Implementation Plan should be aligned with the objectives
Final Pages
• Findings and Conclusions are attuned with the objectives
• Recommendations are feasible and practical
5
• Terms in the glossary are defined operationally
• References should be in APA Format
• Appendices are relevant and help support the principal content
Manuscript Mechanics
• Organization and Fluidity of ideas are apparent
2
• Formatting and layout are consistent
• All parts of the manuscript should be grammatically correct

Quality of the Developed System – 30%

Particulars Percentage Rating


All major modules and features of the system’s output should be in
conformance with the submitted manuscript. The credit shall be based on the 10%
percentage of delivered items.
The developed system adheres with its desired performance in terms of
15%
functionality, content, accuracy and over-all acceptability.
Group debugging – the development team displayed competence in resolving
5%
placed bugs in the system.

TOTAL 30%

Oral Examination (Individual Grade) – 40%

Particulars Percentage A B C D E

Comprehensiveness of the Answer/Ideas


8%
Delivery/Command of the English Language, able to
8%
communicate his/her ideas effectively.
Contribution/Support to the Team
8%
The visual presentation exemplified ideas, concisely and
8%
comprehensively
Presenter is well prepared, appeared relaxed and
confident. He/ She exemplified mastery and reasoning 8%
ability in defending his/her proposal/section.
TOTAL 40%

EVALUATOR: _________________________________________________ DATE_______________


Signature over Printed Name
UNIVERSIDAD DE MANILA
One Mehan Gardens Arroceros St., Manila

College of Engineering and Technology

Final Defense Final Grade Summary


Proponent(s): ___ Sem. A.Y. 20__- 20__
A. ____________________________________________ Degree:
B. ____________________________________________ ____________________________________
C. ____________________________________________ College:
D. ____________________________________________ ____________________________________
E. ____________________________________________ Name of Adviser:
____________________________________
Title of Research/Project Proposal:

FINAL GRADE SUMMARY:

Particulars Percentage Rating

Quality of Manuscript and Developed


60%
System

Oral Examination Group Grade


40%
(Average of Individual Grade)

TOTAL 100%

FINAL RECOMMENDATION:

APPROVED – Minor revisions are necessary but they do not have to be presented in front of all
panelists. Further checking will be in the discretion of panel members’ availability (70-100%. – based
on the total score of the quality of documentation, developed system and oral examination.)

APPROVED WITH REVISIONS – Major revisions will be incorporated in the final copy of the final
manuscript as well as in the developed system. Students must re-present their system in front of all
panelists (50-69%- based on the total score of the quality of documentation and developed system.)

DISAPPROVED – The students failed to present a researchable or scholarly research/capstone


project. (49%and below – based on the total score of the quality of documentation and developed
system.)

EVALUATOR :_________________________________________________ DATE_______________


Signature over Printed Name
UNIVERSIDAD DE MANILA
One Mehan Gardens Arroceros St., Manila

College of Engineering and Technology

Final Defense Evaluation Sheet

Proponent(s): ___ Sem. A.Y. 20__- 20__


A. ____________________________________________ Degree:
B. ____________________________________________ ____________________________________
C. ____________________________________________ College:
D. ____________________________________________ ____________________________________
E. ____________________________________________ Name of Adviser:
____________________________________
Title of Research/Project Proposal:

Comments, Evaluation and Recommendations:


__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

EVALUATOR:_________________________________________________ DATE_______________
Signature over Printed Name

You might also like