Scribd
Upload
150 views2 pages

Defense of Research Proposal: Evaluation: Note: Excellent: 5 Very Good: 4 Good: 3 Fair: 2

This document contains an evaluation form for assessing a student's defense of a research proposal. The form evaluates the student's introduction, literature review, research methodology, feasibility of preliminary results, and overall performance. Each section is worth 20% of the total grade. The examiner will decide if the defense was satisfactory, satisfactory with minor amendments, or unsatisfactory based on an overall score out of 100. Written comments must be provided if the decision is anything other than satisfactory.

Uploaded by

Joel Mangallay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
150 views2 pages

Defense of Research Proposal: Evaluation: Note: Excellent: 5 Very Good: 4 Good: 3 Fair: 2

This document contains an evaluation form for assessing a student's defense of a research proposal. The form evaluates the student's introduction, literature review, research methodology, feasibility of preliminary results, and overall performance. Each section is worth 20% of the total grade. The examiner will decide if the defense was satisfactory, satisfactory with minor amendments, or unsatisfactory based on an overall score out of 100. Written comments must be provided if the decision is anything other than satisfactory.

Uploaded by

Joel Mangallay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ALEJO M.

PACALSO MEMORIAL NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL


DEFENSE OF RESEARCH PROPOSAL: EVALUATION
(To be used by Individual Examiner)

Name of Candidates Student ID


No.

Subject Date

Research Title

Practical Research II GRADE

* Note: Excellent: 5 Very Good: 4 Good: 3 Fair: 2 Poor: 1


Actual Marks
Weight Marks (B)
Item Evaluation Criteria (B)
(A) (1 - 5)* (A)
5

Introduction
1. 20
(Background information, problem statements, aims/objectives)
Literature Review
2. (Relevant literatures, reasonable review parameter, recent 20
development, organization of issues etc.)
Research Methodology
3. 20
(Description of method, experimental design, etc.)
Feasibility of Study and Preliminary Results
4. (in terms of scope, time, resources & practicality; observation to 20
date, presentation statistical analysis, graphs, tables, etc)
Overall Performance
5. 20
(Presentation skills, shows confidence during Q&A session, etc.)

Total
100
(Note: The marks are as guidance for examiner to make the overall decision)

OVERALL DECISION SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY # #

(Tick the appropriate box) With minor amendments/ (less than 50 marks)
comments to improve the
objectives, problem statement,
work plan of research, etc.
#
Written comments must be provided if decision is either one of these two categories.
Comments for candidates reference/improvement:
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Examiner : ______________________

Name of Examiner : ________________________ Date : ___________________

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy