NEW ERA UNIVERSITY

No. 5 Central Avenue, Brgy New Era, Diliman, Quezon City

College of Engineering and Architecture
ARCHITECTURE DEPARTMENT

ARCH DESIGN 9: RUBRIC FOR EVALUATING THESIS PROPOSAL

PROPONENT: VICTOR D. MARTINEZ, JR. THESIS TITLE: URBAN AGRI-TECTURE: A SUSTAINABLE LOW-COST

ADVISER: AR. MARK G. DELFIN, RMP, UAP, PIEP VERTICAL HOUSING

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.

Rubric Proposal Defense ver 2019.

 The different presentation entities are
disintegrated. There is visible absence of
harmony and disjointed flow of thoughts in
Cohesiveness the research documents. The absence of
operational definition of terms and graphic
enhancements, further complicated the
situation.
FORM
The proposal did not follow the prescribed
outline as indicated in the thesis guidelines.
There is no consistency in the hierarchical
Technical juxtaposition of sets of information and
points (bullets and numbering were very
Outline
inconsistent). Figures, tables, graphs and
photographs were floating and un-
annotated.
The whole composition manifested poor,
confusing and inferior sentence construction
Narrative
quality, and flawed grammars. Furthermore,
Quality typographical blunder is almost a usual
sight.
ORAL PRESENTATION
The students failed to clearly and confidently
explain his or her propositions. The usage of
Oral oral communication tool manifested lack of
confidence and fluency. The student cannot
Presentation
answer or give rejoinder to the panel’s
question.
The students did not visibly supply matured,
well-prepared graphical and visual
Graphical enhancements during his or her
presentation as a way of giving profound
Enhancements
explications to his propositions. The visual
aids were poorly done.
PASSED
REMARKS
with no revisions
NAME OF JUROR
SIGNATURE
Rubric Proposal Defense ver 2019.
. The research documentation entities were
written with little cohesion and with obvious
discontinuous thoughts. The improper
presentation of operational definition of terms
and graphic enhancements further prejudiced
the research documents.
The proposal did not follow the prescribed
outline as indicated in the thesis guidelines.
There is little consistency in the hierarchical
juxtaposition of sets of information and points
(bullets and numbering were not that
consistent). Significant number of figures,
tables, graphs and photographs were floating
and un-annotated.
The composition manifested significant
quantity of grammatical errors aside from
manifesting voluminous typographical
blunders.
The student at least showed effort to orally
explain the proposition. However, there were
very obvious manifestations of confusions
and inconsistencies. Most of the time, the
student cannot give rejoinder to the panel’s
query.
The student’s visual and graphical
enhancement was poor and almost
indecipherable. Although, there is a
manifestation of conscientious effort, the
enhancement outcome is very rudimentary.
PASSED
with minor revisions
(please encircle)
AR. ALVIN EBER G. ARLANZA, UAP
Generally, there is cohesion continuity and
unity in the presented research
documentation entities. However, there are
minor improvements that need to be done in
the presentation of operational definition of
terms, graphic enhancements, and other
visual supports.
The proposal generally followed the
prescribed outline which led to minor
misperceptions. There is visible consistency
in the hierarchical juxtaposition of sets of
information and points (bullets and numbering
were consistent). A small number of figures,
tables, graphs and photographs were floating
and un-annotated.
The presentation is generally acceptable but
with little grammatical errors and few
typographical inaccuracies.
Generally, the student was able to explain his
or her propositions although there are few
apprehensive moments. There are very few
instances that the student failed to give
rejoinder to panel’s inquiry.
The visual and graphical enhancement was
generally reasonable and conscientious effort
is very visible. There are only few negligible
inaccuracies. In a way, the supporting
graphics helped in giving due explications to
the propositions.
FAILED
DATE
There was overall cohesion, unity and
continuity of the presentation of ideas and
proposition. The cohesion was further
reinforced by a well-presented operational 10
definition of terms, tables, charts,
photographs and other visual
enhancements.
20
The proposal was technically presented
using the prescribed outline as indicated in
the thesis guidelines. There is consistency
in the hierarchical juxtaposition of sets of
information and points (bullets and
numbering were consistent). The manner 10
of tagging the illustrations, photographs,
graphs, tables and other visual
enhancements were systematic in
accordance with the research
documentation practices.
The presentation was done with grammar
precision and superior sentence
construction. Typographical error is 10
imperceptible.
10
The students clearly and confidently
explained his or her propositions in
professional language. Furthermore, the
student confidently gave rejoinder and
6
comprehensive explications to all panel
inquiries.
The students visibly supplied mature, and
well-prepared graphical and visual
enhancements during his or her 4
presentation as a way of giving profound
explications to the propositions.
TOTAL
(Simply sum up the ‘grade’ in each row.)
THE PASSING GRADE IS 60% AND UP.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2019
 NEW ERA UNIVERSITY
No. 5 Central Avenue, Brgy New Era, Diliman, Quezon City
College of Engineering and Architecture
ARCHITECTURE DEPARTMENT

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 9 COMMENT SHEET

THESIS TITLE: URBAN AGRI-TECTURE: A SUSTAINABLE LOW-COST VERTICAL HOUSING

PROPONENT: VICTOR D. MARTINEZ, JR.

ADVISER: AR. MARK G. DELFIN, RMP, UAP, PIEPS

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND OTHER CONCERNS DURING PRESENTATION

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PANELIST:
Kindly list down all questions, comments and other concerns that may strike you during the presentation to be used as a guide during
the panel discussion. Place a check mark on all questions successfully answered by the proponent/s.

FINAL COMMENTS AND OTHER CONCERNS

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PANELIST:
Kindly list down all comments and other concerns that may arise during deliberations as well as any other questions not answered
successfully by the proponent/s during the panel discussion. This shall serve as the justification / basis of the grade given to the
proponent/s for this particular defense.

PANELIST: AR. ALVIN EBER G. ARLANZA, UAP DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2019
(Signature over printed name)

Rubric Proposal Defense ver 2019.