Arch Design 9: Rubric For Evaluating Thesis Proposal
Arch Design 9: Rubric For Evaluating Thesis Proposal
Arch Design 9: Rubric For Evaluating Thesis Proposal
PROPONENT: VICTOR D. MARTINEZ, JR. THESIS TITLE: URBAN AGRI-TECTURE: A SUSTAINABLE LOW-COST
PERFORMANCE
RATING GRADE
Poor Developing Acceptable Commendable SCORE WEIGHT
INDICATORS
1 point 2 points 3 points 4 points = (score x weight)/4
SUBSTANCE 70
There was an attempt to describe the study
Rationale and and an effort to substantiate its significance The proposed study was well-presented, and
The proposed study was not properly The proposed study was comprehensively
Presentation However, in the end, there were confusions its significance was substantiated. However,
presented, and its significance was not
and significant gray areas in as much as the there still minor misperceptions on some
presented, and its novelty and significance 12
of the Problem substantiated and explained. was well-explained.
(The Problem) degree of understanding and appreciation of aspects of in the process of substantiation.
the rationale and significance of the study.
Architectural objectives were unclearly Architectural objectives were unclearly Architectural objectives were acceptably set
Architectural objectives were clearly set
stated. All objectives were highfalutin and presented. Some of the objectives may be and validation is seemingly practical.
Objectives validation is punctiliously impossible or workable but majority are pretentious and However, there is still a visible details that
and validation is practically possible or 12
achievable.
unworkable. validation seems to be impossible. needs to be enhanced or clarified.
The scope and delimitation of the study were The scope and delimitation of the study
Delineations, The scope and delimitation of the study was There was a manifestation to explain the
explained and is generally acceptable were properly established. It was
not properly expressed. Thus, the scope and delimitation. However, the
Inclusions and delineation, exclusion or inclusions were not delineation, exclusion and inclusion within the
However; there are some aspects of philosophically delineating the things that 8
Exclusions delineation, exclusion or inclusions that needs shall be included and excluded in the
understandable. study were still significantly confusing.
to be clarified. study.
Related literature and projects were
Related literature and projects were
Related literature and projects were annotated. In a way, it corroborated the Related literature and projects were well
presented but not properly annotated. The
Related unannotated and confusing. It did not quality of conceptual framework. However, annotated, well-presented and successfully
corroborate the profundity of theoretical
attempt to relate it to the study is not visible.
there are still matters in the presentations that corroborated the profundity of theoretical
6
Literature Thus, it did not corroborate the profundity of
framework. needs further explication on how the literature framework.
theoretical framework.
would reinforce the theoretical framework.
Methodologies including tools and
Methodologies including tools and
Methodologies including tools and approaches to achieve the objectives were Methodologies including tools and
approaches to achieve the objectives were
Strategies and approaches to achieve the objectives were presented and at least proven. However, approaches to achieve the objectives were
doubtfully presented and seemingly
presented but there are little relations to the
there is a minor enhancements that need to systematically presented and proven to be
10
Approaches to the general research strategy and to the
unrelated to the general research strategy. done to ensure that the methodologies would in parallel to the general research strategy.
attempt to achieve the objectives.
ensure the achievement of the objectives.
The Project Feasibility was generally Although the Project Feasibility gave The Project Feasibility was clearly
The Project Feasibility was very confusing
Feasibility & confusing and gave very little illustrative illustrative synopsis of the whole processes of expounded and it comprehensively gave
and did not give illustrative synopsis of the
synopsis of the whole processes of the the proposal, there is still a need for minor illustrative synopsis of the whole processes 12
Framework whole processes of the research proposal.
research proposal. enhancements to the presentation. of the research proposal.
PANELIST: AR. ALVIN EBER G. ARLANZA, UAP DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2019
(Signature over printed name)