Scribd
Upload
68 views1 page

Research Defense Rating Rubric

This document contains a rating sheet for oral proposal defenses at Arellano University. The rating sheet evaluates research papers (30%), research evaluation (30%), and oral presentations (40%) based on criteria like organization, analysis, findings, feasibility, and presentation skills. Researchers receive an overall rating out of 100 that corresponds to a grade equivalent of excellent, passed with minor/major revisions, passed with consultation, or failed. Raters and verifiers sign the sheet to assess the proposal defense.

Uploaded by

ORMINITA AL FRANCIS R.
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
68 views1 page

Research Defense Rating Rubric

This document contains a rating sheet for oral proposal defenses at Arellano University. The rating sheet evaluates research papers (30%), research evaluation (30%), and oral presentations (40%) based on criteria like organization, analysis, findings, feasibility, and presentation skills. Researchers receive an overall rating out of 100 that corresponds to a grade equivalent of excellent, passed with minor/major revisions, passed with consultation, or failed. Raters and verifiers sign the sheet to assess the proposal defense.

Uploaded by

ORMINITA AL FRANCIS R.
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

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY

Jose Abad Santos Campus


Basic Education Department – Senior High School
3058 Taft Avenue Pasay City

RESEARCH DEPARTMENT

TITLE DEFENSE

ORAL PROPOSAL DEFENSE RATING SHEET

Researcher :

Date of Defense :

Section/Strand :

Research Title :

Criteria Weight Rating


A. Research Paper 30%
1. Originality and uniqueness of research topic
2. Organization and style of research paper
3. Depth of analysis and interpretation
4. Appropriateness of statistical tool/mathematical models used
5. Appropriateness of the use of tables/graphs/figures/paradigms
6. Clear statement of findings, insights, conclusions, implications
and recommendations

B. Research Evaluation 30%


1. Technical Feasibility
2. Innovativeness
3. Applicability
4. Impact on Environment
5. Cost Effectiveness
C. Oral Presentation 40%
1. Quality of Presentation
a. Organization/comprehensiveness
b. Mastery of the content
c. Clarity and brevity of communicated information
d. Evidence of careful planning and preparation
2. Ability to answer questions
a. Precision and clarity
b. Consistency and reliability of answers
3. Personal Attributes of the Presenter
a. Good communication skills
b. Poise and confidence
c. Physical appearance
d. Well – prepared
OVER-ALL RATING 100%

Grade Equivalent:
95-100 – EXCELLENT Rater: Verified by:
90-94 – PASSED w/minor revision ________________________________________
85-89 – PASSED w/major revision Member
80-84- PASSED w/consultation ____________________________________
70-79 – FAILED ________________________________________ Chairman
Member

You might also like