THESIS PROPONENT : ________________________________________________________________ PROPOSED TOPIC/PROJECT : ________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

P R O J E C T D E F E N S E R U B R I C CRITERIA SATISFACTORY PASSING DISAPPOINTING

PROBLEM & ITS SETTING

INTRODUCTION (Rationale, Background, Problem Statement)

Identifies main issues vividly and smoothly connects these to the architectural solution proposed.

Identifies main issues but the writing limitedly connects these to the architectural solution proposed.

Main issues were confusing and these hardly connect to the architectural solution proposed.

(2 pts) (1 pt) ( 0 pt )

PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES (The End Vision of the Proponent, List of Outputs)

Project goals & objectives are clear, unique to the thesis proposal, attainable and timely.

Listed goals & objectives are simply on the acceptable levels but the wordings used lack originality.

Project goals & objectives are confusing, and cannot be accepted as such.

(2 pts) (1 pt) ( 0 pt )

SIGNIFICANCE & EXPECTED OUTPUT Specifically identifies the opportunity, perceived contribution to its intended primary users, the society, and architecture.

Clearly discusses the relevance of the project with the issues presented. Stated as if the proposal is really going to be built.

The opportunity, beneficiary and relevance were identified but the writing needs a little more editing.

There was hardly any attempt to make the thesis relevant, contributory, unique & interesting.

(2 pts) (1 pt) ( 0 pt )

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

Scope and delimitations of the study were within acceptable parameters and with full regard of the thesis student’s capabilities.

Scope and delimitations of the study may not have been exhaustive but the outline can be within acceptable parameters.

Simple case of cut – paste resolution to the requirement.

(2 pts) (1 pt) ( 0 pt ) THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

There was conceiveable evidence that the sources used were analyzed thoroughly and thoughtfully abridged. The thesis student has made precise annotations that prove what he has read has influenced his ideas.

There was token analysis of the sources and it seems this is done merely to comply with the requirements.

There was hardly any connection between the sources and the proposed thesis.

(2 pts) (1 pt) ( 0 pt )

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The conceptual framework is perfectly understandable and reflects the totality of the thesis proposal in a very organized & systematic approach.

The conceptual framework is based merely on fairly accepted norms and is hardly original.

Unable to identify an appropriate model or framework.

(2 pts) (1 pt) ( 0 pt )

D e L a S a l l e U n i v e r s i t y – D a s m a r i ñ a s C i t y Col lege o f Engineer ing , Arch i tec ture & Technology

A R C H I T E C T U R E D E P A R T M E N T

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY (System of Inquiry, Work Plan, Data Gathering Procedure)

The research inquiry going to the solution form one seamless, unique and organized process.

Methodology used is predictable but is useful nevertheless.

There is no intent to make the methodology a well – thought process.

(2 pts) (1 pt) ( 0 pt )

TENTATIVE SITE CRITERIA

The site criteria presented are exhaustive and may be used immediately for the next defense.

The site criteria presented are exhaustive but needs further editing to be useful for the next defense..

The site criteria are too random to be useful anyway.

(2 pts) (1 pt) ( 0 pt ) PRESENTATION

ORAL COMMUNICATION SKILL

Exhibits full authority in the thesis proposal by speaking cleverly in English; answers questions confidently and directly; never intends to exceed the time allotted.

There is token attempt to answer in English; answers haltingly but can get to the point anyway; uses up a lot of time between responses but answers are correct & acceptable.

Hardly convinces the Panel of Jury with the replies given. Hopes the Panel of Jury will simply accept everything.

(2 pts) (1 pt) ( 0 pt )

VISUAL COMMUNICATION SKILL

Slides are very readable; there was rehearsal before the actual defense; all slides are relevant to the topic; never boring but not too tiring; thoughts are never lost because of the good visual presentation.

Slides are fairly readable; relevance to the thesis established; may be too numerous to comprehend; took a lot of time to finish.

Output is sloppy, unremarkable and unprofessional.

(2 pts) (1 pt) ( 0 pt )

P A N E L I S T ’ S D E C I S I O N PASSED ! FAILED !

Panelist: ___________________________________ Adviser: ___________________________________ Date: ___________________________________