Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ORAL DEFENSE EVALUATION
The attached evaluation tool (rubric) is designed to assist in the evaluation of students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research paper. The evaluation of a research paper and its defense can be an integral part of the student learning outcomes assessment conducted by the department.
This evaluation tool will:
• provide students, prior to their defense, with a clear understanding of the elements of their written research paper and its defense deemed most important to the defense committee;
• provide multiple perspectives on students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research and engage in cogent discourse about their chosen field of study;
• encourage conversations among departmental colleagues about improving student learning outcomes and
assessment; and
• serve as a potential source of program-level data on the accomplishment of the program’s learning outcome objectives, for submission as part of an assessment and progress report.
SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTAL GUIDELINES
1. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) will automatically be the 2nd Quarter Examination for SH – Practical
Research 2 (Quantitative) where research panelists will ask questions. 2. The entire performance of the team will be graded according to the Oral Defense rubric which will be then the
basis whether the group has passed or not. 3. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) is divided into six (6) areas where these are recorded as Performance
Tasks (PT). 4. Defense committee members and students should review and become familiar with the criteria in the evaluation
tool prior to the defense.
5. The rubric should be scored after the defense, or shortly thereafter, by every member of the defense committee.
6. The rubric shall then be completed (providing a summary of the scored ratings below for each of the criteria in the rubric), returned to the appropriate department/program office, and maintained in a confidential departmental file following the defense (one cover page per evaluator) for use as a valuable tool in graduate student learning outcomes assessment.
7. The chairman on the Committee on Oral Examination shall facilitate in the entire process and is in-charge in taking down notes on comments/suggestions/recommendations of the committee. There should ONLY be one rubric to be used in the oral examination and will be given to the chairman.
RESEARCH TITLE
Note: The title should be ENCODED.
Strand and Section: Final Numerical Grade:
Please put a tick on the item that applies Date of Defense: ____________________
Defense Result: Passed Defense Category: Research Paper Proposal Defense
Failed/Unsatisfactory Research Paper Final Defense
With minor revisions
With major revisions
___________________________________
Chairman/Technical Expert
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Panel Member Panel Member
___________________________________ NONIEL JOHN VASQUEZ ERNO
Panel Member Research Adviser/Teacher
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
GAS 12 A - FAITH
/100
PEER ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION
This Peer Assessment/Evaluation will be used by the lead researcher in scoring the research associate/member. The
scores will depend on the grade given by the Committee on Oral Examination. The grades earned will then be the basis
of the lead researcher for the individual member’s grade considering the gravity of work one has rendered in the
accomplishment of the research paper.
RC CODE SH-GAS-A12-C305-001
Researchers
Abstr
act
Intr
oducti
on
Dis
cussio
n
Sum
mary
Maste
ry a
nd
unders
tandin
g
Mechanic
s a
nd
docum
enta
tion
Total Score
Lead Researcher: ZAMORA, LORJIELYN Asst. Lead Researcher: DAYON, BILLY SIMON Research Associate: DADULA, KIMBERLY Research Associate: NAYA, REMAELYN Research Associate: MURILLO, JIM JOSHUA Research Associate:
Research is becoming more important in higher education as evidence is accumulating that clear, inquiry-based learning, scholarship, and creative accomplishments can and do foster effective, high levels of student learning. This curricular innovation includes identifying a concrete investigative problem, carrying out the project, and sharing findings with peers. The following standards describe effective research papers.
Oral Defense Assessment Rubric (2ND Quarter Examination)
Standards Exemplary
10-9 points
Satisfactory
8-6 points
Unacceptable
5-1 points
Score Weight Total
Score
Abstract Clearly states problem
and question to be resolved; clearly summarizes method, results, and
conclusions
Summarizes problem,
method, results, and conclusions but lacks some details
Is vague about the
problem; does not provide a summary of the whole project
X 2
Introduction Provides background
research into the topic and summarizes important findings from the review of the literature; describes problem to be solved;
justifies the study; explains the significance of the problem to an audience of non-specialists
Provides background
research into the topic and describes the problem to be solved
Provides background
research into the topic but does not describe the problem to be solved; insufficient or nonexistent explanation of details to non-
specialists
X 1
Discussion Addresses the topic with clarity; organizes
and synthesizes information; and draws conclusions
Addresses the topic; lacks substantive
conclusions; sometimes digresses from topic of focus
Presents
Presents little to no clarity in formulating
conclusions and/or organization
X 2
Summary Presents a logical explanation for
findings; presents clear recommendations and/or implications for future research
Presents a logical explanation for findings
Does not adequately explain findings
X 2
Mastery and Understanding
Excellent manifestation of the mastery and
understanding of the entire research output.
Some questions pose by the panelists are answered.
Has no mastery of the paper and answers are mostly wrong.
X 2
Mechanics and
documentation
Is free or almost free of
errors of grammar, spelling, and writing mechanics; appropriately documents sources
Has errors but they do
not represent a major distraction; documents sources
Has errors that obscure
meaning of content or add confusion; neglects important sources or documents few to no resources
X 1
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
ORAL DEFENSE EVALUATION
The attached evaluation tool (rubric) is designed to assist in the evaluation of students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research paper. The evaluation of a research paper and its defense can be an integral part of the student learning outcomes assessment conducted by the department.
This evaluation tool will:
• provide students, prior to their defense, with a clear understanding of the elements of their written research paper and its defense deemed most important to the defense committee;
• provide multiple perspectives on students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research and engage in cogent discourse about their chosen field of study;
• encourage conversations among departmental colleagues about improving student learning outcomes and
assessment; and
• serve as a potential source of program-level data on the accomplishment of the program’s learning outcome objectives, for submission as part of an assessment and progress report.
SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTAL GUIDELINES
1. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) will automatically be the 2nd Quarter Examination for SH – Practical
Research 2 (Quantitative) where research panelists will ask questions. 2. The entire performance of the team will be graded according to the Oral Defense rubric which will be then the
basis whether the group has passed or not. 3. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) is divided into six (6) areas where these are recorded as Performance
Tasks (PT). 4. Defense committee members and students should review and become familiar with the criteria in the evaluation
tool prior to the defense.
5. The rubric should be scored after the defense, or shortly thereafter, by every member of the defense committee.
6. The rubric shall then be completed (providing a summary of the scored ratings below for each of the criteria in the rubric), returned to the appropriate department/program office, and maintained in a confidential departmental file following the defense (one cover page per evaluator) for use as a valuable tool in graduate student learning outcomes assessment.
7. The chairman on the Committee on Oral Examination shall facilitate in the entire process and is in-charge in taking down notes on comments/suggestions/recommendations of the committee. There should ONLY be one rubric to be used in the oral examination and will be given to the chairman.
RESEARCH TITLE
Note: The title should be ENCODED.
Strand and Section: Final Numerical Grade:
Please put a tick on the item that applies Date of Defense: ____________________
Defense Result: Passed Defense Category: Research Paper Proposal Defense
Failed/Unsatisfactory Research Paper Final Defense
With minor revisions
With major revisions
___________________________________
Chairman/Technical Expert
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Panel Member Panel Member
___________________________________ NONIEL JOHN VASQUEZ ERNO
Panel Member Research Adviser/Teacher
GAS 12 A - FAITH
/100
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
PEER ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION
This Peer Assessment/Evaluation will be used by the lead researcher in scoring the research associate/member. The
scores will depend on the grade given by the Committee on Oral Examination. The grades earned will then be the basis
of the lead researcher for the individual member’s grade considering the gravity of work one has rendered in the
accomplishment of the research paper.
RC CODE SH-GAS-A12-C305-002
Researchers
Abstr
act
Intr
oducti
on
Dis
cussio
n
Sum
mary
Maste
ry a
nd
unders
tandin
g
Mechanic
s a
nd
docum
enta
tion
Total Score
Lead Researcher: ACAL, IVY MAE Asst. Lead Researcher: RUIZ, URSULA JOY Research Associate: DELA CRUZ, RAMILYN Research Associate: TEK-ING, BARBARA GAIL Research Associate: BATULAN, MELVIN Research Associate:
Research is becoming more important in higher education as evidence is accumulating that clear, inquiry-based learning, scholarship, and creative accomplishments can and do foster effective, high levels of student learning. This curricular innovation includes identifying a concrete investigative problem, carrying out the project, and sharing findings with peers. The following standards describe effective research papers.
Oral Defense Assessment Rubric (2ND Quarter Examination)
Standards Exemplary
10-9 points
Satisfactory
8-6 points
Unacceptable
5-1 points
Score Weight Total
Score
Abstract Clearly states problem
and question to be resolved; clearly summarizes method, results, and
conclusions
Summarizes problem,
method, results, and conclusions but lacks some details
Is vague about the
problem; does not provide a summary of the whole project
X 2
Introduction Provides background
research into the topic and summarizes important findings from the review of the literature; describes problem to be solved;
justifies the study; explains the significance of the problem to an audience of non-specialists
Provides background
research into the topic and describes the problem to be solved
Provides background
research into the topic but does not describe the problem to be solved; insufficient or nonexistent explanation of details to non-
specialists
X 1
Discussion Addresses the topic with clarity; organizes
and synthesizes information; and draws conclusions
Addresses the topic; lacks substantive
conclusions; sometimes digresses from topic of focus
Presents
Presents little to no clarity in formulating
conclusions and/or organization
X 2
Summary Presents a logical explanation for
findings; presents clear recommendations and/or implications for future research
Presents a logical explanation for findings
Does not adequately explain findings
X 2
Mastery and Understanding
Excellent manifestation of the mastery and
understanding of the entire research output.
Some questions pose by the panelists are answered.
Has no mastery of the paper and answers are mostly wrong.
X 2
Mechanics and
documentation
Is free or almost free of
errors of grammar, spelling, and writing mechanics; appropriately documents sources
Has errors but they do
not represent a major distraction; documents sources
Has errors that obscure
meaning of content or add confusion; neglects important sources or documents few to no resources
X 1
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
ORAL DEFENSE EVALUATION
The attached evaluation tool (rubric) is designed to assist in the evaluation of students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research paper. The evaluation of a research paper and its defense can be an integral part of the student learning outcomes assessment conducted by the department.
This evaluation tool will:
• provide students, prior to their defense, with a clear understanding of the elements of their written research paper and its defense deemed most important to the defense committee;
• provide multiple perspectives on students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research and engage in cogent discourse about their chosen field of study;
• encourage conversations among departmental colleagues about improving student learning outcomes and
assessment; and
• serve as a potential source of program-level data on the accomplishment of the program’s learning outcome objectives, for submission as part of an assessment and progress report.
SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTAL GUIDELINES
1. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) will automatically be the 2nd Quarter Examination for SH – Practical
Research 2 (Quantitative) where research panelists will ask questions. 2. The entire performance of the team will be graded according to the Oral Defense rubric which will be then the
basis whether the group has passed or not. 3. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) is divided into six (6) areas where these are recorded as Performance
Tasks (PT). 4. Defense committee members and students should review and become familiar with the criteria in the evaluation
tool prior to the defense.
5. The rubric should be scored after the defense, or shortly thereafter, by every member of the defense committee.
6. The rubric shall then be completed (providing a summary of the scored ratings below for each of the criteria in the rubric), returned to the appropriate department/program office, and maintained in a confidential departmental file following the defense (one cover page per evaluator) for use as a valuable tool in graduate student learning outcomes assessment.
7. The chairman on the Committee on Oral Examination shall facilitate in the entire process and is in-charge in taking down notes on comments/suggestions/recommendations of the committee. There should ONLY be one rubric to be used in the oral examination and will be given to the chairman.
RESEARCH TITLE
Note: The title should be ENCODED.
Strand and Section: Final Numerical Grade:
Please put a tick on the item that applies Date of Defense: ____________________
Defense Result: Passed Defense Category: Research Paper Proposal Defense
Failed/Unsatisfactory Research Paper Final Defense
With minor revisions
With major revisions
___________________________________
Chairman/Technical Expert
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Panel Member Panel Member
___________________________________ NONIEL JOHN VASQUEZ ERNO
Panel Member Research Adviser/Teacher
GAS 12 A - FAITH
/100
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
PEER ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION
This Peer Assessment/Evaluation will be used by the lead researcher in scoring the research associate/member. The
scores will depend on the grade given by the Committee on Oral Examination. The grades earned will then be the basis
of the lead researcher for the individual member’s grade considering the gravity of work one has rendered in the
accomplishment of the research paper.
RC CODE SH-GAS-A12-C305-003
Researchers
Abstr
act
Intr
oducti
on
Dis
cussio
n
Sum
mary
Maste
ry a
nd
unders
tandin
g
Mechanic
s a
nd
docum
enta
tion
Total Score
Lead Researcher: RICAHUERTA, JORGINA Asst. Lead Researcher: ALLOSADA, JEFFERSON Research Associate: ENO, MILKYWAY Research Associate: VALIENTE, EURIKA Research Associate: NUÑEZA, MARC RHUDY Research Associate:
Research is becoming more important in higher education as evidence is accumulating that clear, inquiry-based learning, scholarship, and creative accomplishments can and do foster effective, high levels of student learning. This curricular innovation includes identifying a concrete investigative problem, carrying out the project, and sharing findings with peers. The following standards describe effective research papers.
Oral Defense Assessment Rubric (2ND Quarter Examination)
Standards Exemplary
10-9 points
Satisfactory
8-6 points
Unacceptable
5-1 points
Score Weight Total
Score
Abstract Clearly states problem
and question to be resolved; clearly summarizes method, results, and
conclusions
Summarizes problem,
method, results, and conclusions but lacks some details
Is vague about the
problem; does not provide a summary of the whole project
X 2
Introduction Provides background
research into the topic and summarizes important findings from the review of the literature; describes problem to be solved;
justifies the study; explains the significance of the problem to an audience of non-specialists
Provides background
research into the topic and describes the problem to be solved
Provides background
research into the topic but does not describe the problem to be solved; insufficient or nonexistent explanation of details to non-
specialists
X 1
Discussion Addresses the topic with clarity; organizes
and synthesizes information; and draws conclusions
Addresses the topic; lacks substantive
conclusions; sometimes digresses from topic of focus
Presents
Presents little to no clarity in formulating
conclusions and/or organization
X 2
Summary Presents a logical explanation for
findings; presents clear recommendations and/or implications for future research
Presents a logical explanation for findings
Does not adequately explain findings
X 2
Mastery and Understanding
Excellent manifestation of the mastery and
understanding of the entire research output.
Some questions pose by the panelists are answered.
Has no mastery of the paper and answers are mostly wrong.
X 2
Mechanics and
documentation
Is free or almost free of
errors of grammar, spelling, and writing mechanics; appropriately documents sources
Has errors but they do
not represent a major distraction; documents sources
Has errors that obscure
meaning of content or add confusion; neglects important sources or documents few to no resources
X 1
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
ORAL DEFENSE EVALUATION
The attached evaluation tool (rubric) is designed to assist in the evaluation of students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research paper. The evaluation of a research paper and its defense can be an integral part of the student learning outcomes assessment conducted by the department.
This evaluation tool will:
• provide students, prior to their defense, with a clear understanding of the elements of their written research paper and its defense deemed most important to the defense committee;
• provide multiple perspectives on students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research and engage in cogent discourse about their chosen field of study;
• encourage conversations among departmental colleagues about improving student learning outcomes and
assessment; and
• serve as a potential source of program-level data on the accomplishment of the program’s learning outcome objectives, for submission as part of an assessment and progress report.
SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTAL GUIDELINES
1. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) will automatically be the 2nd Quarter Examination for SH – Practical
Research 2 (Quantitative) where research panelists will ask questions. 2. The entire performance of the team will be graded according to the Oral Defense rubric which will be then the
basis whether the group has passed or not. 3. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) is divided into six (6) areas where these are recorded as Performance
Tasks (PT). 4. Defense committee members and students should review and become familiar with the criteria in the evaluation
tool prior to the defense.
5. The rubric should be scored after the defense, or shortly thereafter, by every member of the defense committee.
6. The rubric shall then be completed (providing a summary of the scored ratings below for each of the criteria in the rubric), returned to the appropriate department/program office, and maintained in a confidential departmental file following the defense (one cover page per evaluator) for use as a valuable tool in graduate student learning outcomes assessment.
7. The chairman on the Committee on Oral Examination shall facilitate in the entire process and is in-charge in taking down notes on comments/suggestions/recommendations of the committee. There should ONLY be one rubric to be used in the oral examination and will be given to the chairman.
RESEARCH TITLE
Note: The title should be ENCODED.
Strand and Section: Final Numerical Grade:
Please put a tick on the item that applies Date of Defense: ____________________
Defense Result: Passed Defense Category: Research Paper Proposal Defense
Failed/Unsatisfactory Research Paper Final Defense
With minor revisions
With major revisions
___________________________________
Chairman/Technical Expert
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Panel Member Panel Member
___________________________________ NONIEL JOHN VASQUEZ ERNO
Panel Member Research Adviser/Teacher
GAS 12 A - FAITH
/100
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
PEER ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION
This Peer Assessment/Evaluation will be used by the lead researcher in scoring the research associate/member. The
scores will depend on the grade given by the Committee on Oral Examination. The grades earned will then be the basis
of the lead researcher for the individual member’s grade considering the gravity of work one has rendered in the
accomplishment of the research paper.
RC CODE SH-GAS-A12-C305-004
Researchers
Abstr
act
Intr
oducti
on
Dis
cussio
n
Sum
mary
Maste
ry a
nd
unders
tandin
g
Mechanic
s a
nd
docum
enta
tion
Total Score
Lead Researcher: TABAL, CARMELYN Asst. Lead Researcher: LAYAM, CHERRIE MAE Research Associate: MACASERO, MARIANNE Research Associate: URMENETA, ARGEL Research Associate: TILACAS, TRIXIE GAIL Research Associate:
Research is becoming more important in higher education as evidence is accumulating that clear, inquiry-based learning, scholarship, and creative accomplishments can and do foster effective, high levels of student learning. This curricular innovation includes identifying a concrete investigative problem, carrying out the project, and sharing findings with peers. The following standards describe effective research papers.
Oral Defense Assessment Rubric (2ND Quarter Examination)
Standards Exemplary
10-9 points
Satisfactory
8-6 points
Unacceptable
5-1 points
Score Weight Total
Score
Abstract Clearly states problem
and question to be resolved; clearly summarizes method, results, and
conclusions
Summarizes problem,
method, results, and conclusions but lacks some details
Is vague about the
problem; does not provide a summary of the whole project
X 2
Introduction Provides background
research into the topic and summarizes important findings from the review of the literature; describes problem to be solved;
justifies the study; explains the significance of the problem to an audience of non-specialists
Provides background
research into the topic and describes the problem to be solved
Provides background
research into the topic but does not describe the problem to be solved; insufficient or nonexistent explanation of details to non-
specialists
X 1
Discussion Addresses the topic with clarity; organizes
and synthesizes information; and draws conclusions
Addresses the topic; lacks substantive
conclusions; sometimes digresses from topic of focus
Presents
Presents little to no clarity in formulating
conclusions and/or organization
X 2
Summary Presents a logical explanation for
findings; presents clear recommendations and/or implications for future research
Presents a logical explanation for findings
Does not adequately explain findings
X 2
Mastery and Understanding
Excellent manifestation of the mastery and
understanding of the entire research output.
Some questions pose by the panelists are answered.
Has no mastery of the paper and answers are mostly wrong.
X 2
Mechanics and
documentation
Is free or almost free of
errors of grammar, spelling, and writing mechanics; appropriately documents sources
Has errors but they do
not represent a major distraction; documents sources
Has errors that obscure
meaning of content or add confusion; neglects important sources or documents few to no resources
X 1
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
ORAL DEFENSE EVALUATION
The attached evaluation tool (rubric) is designed to assist in the evaluation of students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research paper. The evaluation of a research paper and its defense can be an integral part of the student learning outcomes assessment conducted by the department.
This evaluation tool will:
• provide students, prior to their defense, with a clear understanding of the elements of their written research paper and its defense deemed most important to the defense committee;
• provide multiple perspectives on students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research and engage in cogent discourse about their chosen field of study;
• encourage conversations among departmental colleagues about improving student learning outcomes and
assessment; and
• serve as a potential source of program-level data on the accomplishment of the program’s learning outcome objectives, for submission as part of an assessment and progress report.
SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTAL GUIDELINES
1. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) will automatically be the 2nd Quarter Examination for SH – Practical
Research 2 (Quantitative) where research panelists will ask questions. 2. The entire performance of the team will be graded according to the Oral Defense rubric which will be then the
basis whether the group has passed or not. 3. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) is divided into six (6) areas where these are recorded as Performance
Tasks (PT). 4. Defense committee members and students should review and become familiar with the criteria in the evaluation
tool prior to the defense.
5. The rubric should be scored after the defense, or shortly thereafter, by every member of the defense committee.
6. The rubric shall then be completed (providing a summary of the scored ratings below for each of the criteria in the rubric), returned to the appropriate department/program office, and maintained in a confidential departmental file following the defense (one cover page per evaluator) for use as a valuable tool in graduate student learning outcomes assessment.
7. The chairman on the Committee on Oral Examination shall facilitate in the entire process and is in-charge in taking down notes on comments/suggestions/recommendations of the committee. There should ONLY be one rubric to be used in the oral examination and will be given to the chairman.
RESEARCH TITLE
Note: The title should be ENCODED.
Strand and Section: Final Numerical Grade:
Please put a tick on the item that applies Date of Defense: ____________________
Defense Result: Passed Defense Category: Research Paper Proposal Defense
Failed/Unsatisfactory Research Paper Final Defense
With minor revisions
With major revisions
___________________________________
Chairman/Technical Expert
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Panel Member Panel Member
___________________________________ NONIEL JOHN VASQUEZ ERNO
Panel Member Research Adviser/Teacher
GAS 12 A - FAITH
/100
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
PEER ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION
This Peer Assessment/Evaluation will be used by the lead researcher in scoring the research associate/member. The
scores will depend on the grade given by the Committee on Oral Examination. The grades earned will then be the basis
of the lead researcher for the individual member’s grade considering the gravity of work one has rendered in the
accomplishment of the research paper.
RC CODE SH-GAS-A12-C305-005
Researchers
Abstr
act
Intr
oducti
on
Dis
cussio
n
Sum
mary
Maste
ry a
nd
unders
tandin
g
Mechanic
s a
nd
docum
enta
tion
Total Score
Lead Researcher: ARGOMIDO, SHARMAINE Asst. Lead Researcher: BONGHANOY, JOSEPH Research Associate: LAGNAYO, ROA MAE Research Associate: FLORES, ROMECEL Research Associate: MARAASIN, HRISTINE FAITH Research Associate:
Research is becoming more important in higher education as evidence is accumulating that clear, inquiry-based learning, scholarship, and creative accomplishments can and do foster effective, high levels of student learning. This curricular innovation includes identifying a concrete investigative problem, carrying out the project, and sharing findings with peers. The following standards describe effective research papers.
Oral Defense Assessment Rubric (2ND Quarter Examination)
Standards Exemplary
10-9 points
Satisfactory
8-6 points
Unacceptable
5-1 points
Score Weight Total
Score
Abstract Clearly states problem
and question to be resolved; clearly summarizes method, results, and
conclusions
Summarizes problem,
method, results, and conclusions but lacks some details
Is vague about the
problem; does not provide a summary of the whole project
X 2
Introduction Provides background
research into the topic and summarizes important findings from the review of the literature; describes problem to be solved;
justifies the study; explains the significance of the problem to an audience of non-specialists
Provides background
research into the topic and describes the problem to be solved
Provides background
research into the topic but does not describe the problem to be solved; insufficient or nonexistent explanation of details to non-
specialists
X 1
Discussion Addresses the topic with clarity; organizes
and synthesizes information; and draws conclusions
Addresses the topic; lacks substantive
conclusions; sometimes digresses from topic of focus
Presents
Presents little to no clarity in formulating
conclusions and/or organization
X 2
Summary Presents a logical explanation for
findings; presents clear recommendations and/or implications for future research
Presents a logical explanation for findings
Does not adequately explain findings
X 2
Mastery and Understanding
Excellent manifestation of the mastery and
understanding of the entire research output.
Some questions pose by the panelists are answered.
Has no mastery of the paper and answers are mostly wrong.
X 2
Mechanics and
documentation
Is free or almost free of
errors of grammar, spelling, and writing mechanics; appropriately documents sources
Has errors but they do
not represent a major distraction; documents sources
Has errors that obscure
meaning of content or add confusion; neglects important sources or documents few to no resources
X 1
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
ORAL DEFENSE EVALUATION
The attached evaluation tool (rubric) is designed to assist in the evaluation of students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research paper. The evaluation of a research paper and its defense can be an integral part of the student learning outcomes assessment conducted by the department.
This evaluation tool will:
• provide students, prior to their defense, with a clear understanding of the elements of their written research paper and its defense deemed most important to the defense committee;
• provide multiple perspectives on students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research and engage in cogent discourse about their chosen field of study;
• encourage conversations among departmental colleagues about improving student learning outcomes and
assessment; and
• serve as a potential source of program-level data on the accomplishment of the program’s learning outcome objectives, for submission as part of an assessment and progress report.
SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTAL GUIDELINES
1. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) will automatically be the 2nd Quarter Examination for SH – Practical
Research 2 (Quantitative) where research panelists will ask questions. 2. The entire performance of the team will be graded according to the Oral Defense rubric which will be then the
basis whether the group has passed or not. 3. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) is divided into six (6) areas where these are recorded as Performance
Tasks (PT). 4. Defense committee members and students should review and become familiar with the criteria in the evaluation
tool prior to the defense.
5. The rubric should be scored after the defense, or shortly thereafter, by every member of the defense committee.
6. The rubric shall then be completed (providing a summary of the scored ratings below for each of the criteria in the rubric), returned to the appropriate department/program office, and maintained in a confidential departmental file following the defense (one cover page per evaluator) for use as a valuable tool in graduate student learning outcomes assessment.
7. The chairman on the Committee on Oral Examination shall facilitate in the entire process and is in-charge in taking down notes on comments/suggestions/recommendations of the committee. There should ONLY be one rubric to be used in the oral examination and will be given to the chairman.
RESEARCH TITLE
Note: The title should be ENCODED.
Strand and Section: Final Numerical Grade:
Please put a tick on the item that applies Date of Defense: ____________________
Defense Result: Passed Defense Category: Research Paper Proposal Defense
Failed/Unsatisfactory Research Paper Final Defense
With minor revisions
With major revisions
___________________________________
Chairman/Technical Expert
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Panel Member Panel Member
___________________________________ NONIEL JOHN VASQUEZ ERNO
Panel Member Research Adviser/Teacher
GAS 12 A - FAITH
/100
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
PEER ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION
This Peer Assessment/Evaluation will be used by the lead researcher in scoring the research associate/member. The
scores will depend on the grade given by the Committee on Oral Examination. The grades earned will then be the basis
of the lead researcher for the individual member’s grade considering the gravity of work one has rendered in the
accomplishment of the research paper.
RC CODE SH-GAS-A12-C305-006
Researchers
Abstr
act
Intr
oducti
on
Dis
cussio
n
Sum
mary
Maste
ry a
nd
unders
tandin
g
Mechanic
s a
nd
docum
enta
tion
Total Score
Lead Researcher: WONG, DYNAH ROBBIE Asst. Lead Researcher: CAÑETE, KAYE MARGARETTE Research Associate: PADAYOGDOG, NEIL JHON Research Associate: SOCO, DEXIM JOHN Research Associate: Research Associate:
Research is becoming more important in higher education as evidence is accumulating that clear, inquiry-based learning, scholarship, and creative accomplishments can and do foster effective, high levels of student learning. This curricular innovation includes identifying a concrete investigative problem, carrying out the project, and sharing findings with peers. The following standards describe effective research papers.
Oral Defense Assessment Rubric (2ND Quarter Examination)
Standards Exemplary
10-9 points
Satisfactory
8-6 points
Unacceptable
5-1 points
Score Weight Total
Score
Abstract Clearly states problem
and question to be resolved; clearly summarizes method, results, and
conclusions
Summarizes problem,
method, results, and conclusions but lacks some details
Is vague about the
problem; does not provide a summary of the whole project
X 2
Introduction Provides background
research into the topic and summarizes important findings from the review of the literature; describes problem to be solved;
justifies the study; explains the significance of the problem to an audience of non-specialists
Provides background
research into the topic and describes the problem to be solved
Provides background
research into the topic but does not describe the problem to be solved; insufficient or nonexistent explanation of details to non-
specialists
X 1
Discussion Addresses the topic with clarity; organizes
and synthesizes information; and draws conclusions
Addresses the topic; lacks substantive
conclusions; sometimes digresses from topic of focus
Presents
Presents little to no clarity in formulating
conclusions and/or organization
X 2
Summary Presents a logical explanation for
findings; presents clear recommendations and/or implications for future research
Presents a logical explanation for findings
Does not adequately explain findings
X 2
Mastery and Understanding
Excellent manifestation of the mastery and
understanding of the entire research output.
Some questions pose by the panelists are answered.
Has no mastery of the paper and answers are mostly wrong.
X 2
Mechanics and
documentation
Is free or almost free of
errors of grammar, spelling, and writing mechanics; appropriately documents sources
Has errors but they do
not represent a major distraction; documents sources
Has errors that obscure
meaning of content or add confusion; neglects important sources or documents few to no resources
X 1
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
ORAL DEFENSE EVALUATION
The attached evaluation tool (rubric) is designed to assist in the evaluation of students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research paper. The evaluation of a research paper and its defense can be an integral part of the student learning outcomes assessment conducted by the department.
This evaluation tool will:
• provide students, prior to their defense, with a clear understanding of the elements of their written research paper and its defense deemed most important to the defense committee;
• provide multiple perspectives on students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research and engage in cogent discourse about their chosen field of study;
• encourage conversations among departmental colleagues about improving student learning outcomes and
assessment; and
• serve as a potential source of program-level data on the accomplishment of the program’s learning outcome objectives, for submission as part of an assessment and progress report.
SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTAL GUIDELINES
1. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) will automatically be the 2nd Quarter Examination for SH – Practical
Research 2 (Quantitative) where research panelists will ask questions. 2. The entire performance of the team will be graded according to the Oral Defense rubric which will be then the
basis whether the group has passed or not. 3. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) is divided into six (6) areas where these are recorded as Performance
Tasks (PT). 4. Defense committee members and students should review and become familiar with the criteria in the evaluation
tool prior to the defense.
5. The rubric should be scored after the defense, or shortly thereafter, by every member of the defense committee.
6. The rubric shall then be completed (providing a summary of the scored ratings below for each of the criteria in the rubric), returned to the appropriate department/program office, and maintained in a confidential departmental file following the defense (one cover page per evaluator) for use as a valuable tool in graduate student learning outcomes assessment.
7. The chairman on the Committee on Oral Examination shall facilitate in the entire process and is in-charge in taking down notes on comments/suggestions/recommendations of the committee. There should ONLY be one rubric to be used in the oral examination and will be given to the chairman.
RESEARCH TITLE
Note: The title should be ENCODED.
Strand and Section: Final Numerical Grade:
Please put a tick on the item that applies Date of Defense: ____________________
Defense Result: Passed Defense Category: Research Paper Proposal Defense
Failed/Unsatisfactory Research Paper Final Defense
With minor revisions
With major revisions
___________________________________
Chairman/Technical Expert
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Panel Member Panel Member
___________________________________ NONIEL JOHN VASQUEZ ERNO
Panel Member Research Adviser/Teacher
GAS 12 A - FAITH
/100
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
PEER ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION
This Peer Assessment/Evaluation will be used by the lead researcher in scoring the research associate/member. The
scores will depend on the grade given by the Committee on Oral Examination. The grades earned will then be the basis
of the lead researcher for the individual member’s grade considering the gravity of work one has rendered in the
accomplishment of the research paper.
RC CODE SH-GAS-A12-C305-007
Researchers
Abstr
act
Intr
oducti
on
Dis
cussio
n
Sum
mary
Maste
ry a
nd
unders
tandin
g
Mechanic
s a
nd
docum
enta
tion
Total Score
Lead Researcher: JAPOS, MYRNA DEE Asst. Lead Researcher: MERONIO, BRYAN Research Associate: FIGARUM, MELODY Research Associate: GALANO, JENNIE ROSE Research Associate: CARPINA, NELGIE Research Associate:
Research is becoming more important in higher education as evidence is accumulating that clear, inquiry-based learning, scholarship, and creative accomplishments can and do foster effective, high levels of student learning. This curricular innovation includes identifying a concrete investigative problem, carrying out the project, and sharing findings with peers. The following standards describe effective research papers.
Oral Defense Assessment Rubric (2ND Quarter Examination)
Standards Exemplary
10-9 points
Satisfactory
8-6 points
Unacceptable
5-1 points
Score Weight Total
Score
Abstract Clearly states problem
and question to be resolved; clearly summarizes method, results, and
conclusions
Summarizes problem,
method, results, and conclusions but lacks some details
Is vague about the
problem; does not provide a summary of the whole project
X 2
Introduction Provides background
research into the topic and summarizes important findings from the review of the literature; describes problem to be solved;
justifies the study; explains the significance of the problem to an audience of non-specialists
Provides background
research into the topic and describes the problem to be solved
Provides background
research into the topic but does not describe the problem to be solved; insufficient or nonexistent explanation of details to non-
specialists
X 1
Discussion Addresses the topic with clarity; organizes
and synthesizes information; and draws conclusions
Addresses the topic; lacks substantive
conclusions; sometimes digresses from topic of focus
Presents
Presents little to no clarity in formulating
conclusions and/or organization
X 2
Summary Presents a logical explanation for
findings; presents clear recommendations and/or implications for future research
Presents a logical explanation for findings
Does not adequately explain findings
X 2
Mastery and Understanding
Excellent manifestation of the mastery and
understanding of the entire research output.
Some questions pose by the panelists are answered.
Has no mastery of the paper and answers are mostly wrong.
X 2
Mechanics and
documentation
Is free or almost free of
errors of grammar, spelling, and writing mechanics; appropriately documents sources
Has errors but they do
not represent a major distraction; documents sources
Has errors that obscure
meaning of content or add confusion; neglects important sources or documents few to no resources
X 1
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
ORAL DEFENSE EVALUATION
The attached evaluation tool (rubric) is designed to assist in the evaluation of students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research paper. The evaluation of a research paper and its defense can be an integral part of the student learning outcomes assessment conducted by the department.
This evaluation tool will:
• provide students, prior to their defense, with a clear understanding of the elements of their written research paper and its defense deemed most important to the defense committee;
• provide multiple perspectives on students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research and engage in cogent discourse about their chosen field of study;
• encourage conversations among departmental colleagues about improving student learning outcomes and
assessment; and
• serve as a potential source of program-level data on the accomplishment of the program’s learning outcome objectives, for submission as part of an assessment and progress report.
SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTAL GUIDELINES
1. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) will automatically be the 2nd Quarter Examination for SH – Practical
Research 2 (Quantitative) where research panelists will ask questions. 2. The entire performance of the team will be graded according to the Oral Defense rubric which will be then the
basis whether the group has passed or not. 3. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) is divided into six (6) areas where these are recorded as Performance
Tasks (PT). 4. Defense committee members and students should review and become familiar with the criteria in the evaluation
tool prior to the defense.
5. The rubric should be scored after the defense, or shortly thereafter, by every member of the defense committee.
6. The rubric shall then be completed (providing a summary of the scored ratings below for each of the criteria in the rubric), returned to the appropriate department/program office, and maintained in a confidential departmental file following the defense (one cover page per evaluator) for use as a valuable tool in graduate student learning outcomes assessment.
7. The chairman on the Committee on Oral Examination shall facilitate in the entire process and is in-charge in taking down notes on comments/suggestions/recommendations of the committee. There should ONLY be one rubric to be used in the oral examination and will be given to the chairman.
RESEARCH TITLE
Note: The title should be ENCODED.
Strand and Section: Final Numerical Grade:
Please put a tick on the item that applies Date of Defense: ____________________
Defense Result: Passed Defense Category: Research Paper Proposal Defense
Failed/Unsatisfactory Research Paper Final Defense
With minor revisions
With major revisions
___________________________________
Chairman/Technical Expert
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Panel Member Panel Member
___________________________________ NONIEL JOHN VASQUEZ ERNO
Panel Member Research Adviser/Teacher
GAS 12 A - FAITH
/100
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
PEER ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION
This Peer Assessment/Evaluation will be used by the lead researcher in scoring the research associate/member. The
scores will depend on the grade given by the Committee on Oral Examination. The grades earned will then be the basis
of the lead researcher for the individual member’s grade considering the gravity of work one has rendered in the
accomplishment of the research paper.
RC CODE SH-GAS-A12-C305-008
Researchers
Abstr
act
Intr
oducti
on
Dis
cussio
n
Sum
mary
Maste
ry a
nd
unders
tandin
g
Mechanic
s a
nd
docum
enta
tion
Total Score
Lead Researcher: GEMINA, VINESS ROSE Asst. Lead Researcher: LISONDRA, LAWRENCE Research Associate: MONCEDA, ROCHARLYN Research Associate: ANDAM, JAY Research Associate: PITOGO, JERAME Research Associate:
Research is becoming more important in higher education as evidence is accumulating that clear, inquiry-based learning, scholarship, and creative accomplishments can and do foster effective, high levels of student learning. This curricular innovation includes identifying a concrete investigative problem, carrying out the project, and sharing findings with peers. The following standards describe effective research papers.
Oral Defense Assessment Rubric (2ND Quarter Examination)
Standards Exemplary
10-9 points
Satisfactory
8-6 points
Unacceptable
5-1 points
Score Weight Total
Score
Abstract Clearly states problem
and question to be resolved; clearly summarizes method, results, and
conclusions
Summarizes problem,
method, results, and conclusions but lacks some details
Is vague about the
problem; does not provide a summary of the whole project
X 2
Introduction Provides background
research into the topic and summarizes important findings from the review of the literature; describes problem to be solved;
justifies the study; explains the significance of the problem to an audience of non-specialists
Provides background
research into the topic and describes the problem to be solved
Provides background
research into the topic but does not describe the problem to be solved; insufficient or nonexistent explanation of details to non-
specialists
X 1
Discussion Addresses the topic with clarity; organizes
and synthesizes information; and draws conclusions
Addresses the topic; lacks substantive
conclusions; sometimes digresses from topic of focus
Presents
Presents little to no clarity in formulating
conclusions and/or organization
X 2
Summary Presents a logical explanation for
findings; presents clear recommendations and/or implications for future research
Presents a logical explanation for findings
Does not adequately explain findings
X 2
Mastery and Understanding
Excellent manifestation of the mastery and
understanding of the entire research output.
Some questions pose by the panelists are answered.
Has no mastery of the paper and answers are mostly wrong.
X 2
Mechanics and
documentation
Is free or almost free of
errors of grammar, spelling, and writing mechanics; appropriately documents sources
Has errors but they do
not represent a major distraction; documents sources
Has errors that obscure
meaning of content or add confusion; neglects important sources or documents few to no resources
X 1
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
ORAL DEFENSE EVALUATION
The attached evaluation tool (rubric) is designed to assist in the evaluation of students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research paper. The evaluation of a research paper and its defense can be an integral part of the student learning outcomes assessment conducted by the department.
This evaluation tool will:
• provide students, prior to their defense, with a clear understanding of the elements of their written research paper and its defense deemed most important to the defense committee;
• provide multiple perspectives on students’ ability to successfully prepare and defend their research and engage in cogent discourse about their chosen field of study;
• encourage conversations among departmental colleagues about improving student learning outcomes and
assessment; and
• serve as a potential source of program-level data on the accomplishment of the program’s learning outcome objectives, for submission as part of an assessment and progress report.
SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTAL GUIDELINES
1. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) will automatically be the 2nd Quarter Examination for SH – Practical
Research 2 (Quantitative) where research panelists will ask questions. 2. The entire performance of the team will be graded according to the Oral Defense rubric which will be then the
basis whether the group has passed or not. 3. The gained score for Oral Defense (OD) is divided into six (6) areas where these are recorded as Performance
Tasks (PT). 4. Defense committee members and students should review and become familiar with the criteria in the evaluation
tool prior to the defense.
5. The rubric should be scored after the defense, or shortly thereafter, by every member of the defense committee.
6. The rubric shall then be completed (providing a summary of the scored ratings below for each of the criteria in the rubric), returned to the appropriate department/program office, and maintained in a confidential departmental file following the defense (one cover page per evaluator) for use as a valuable tool in graduate student learning outcomes assessment.
7. The chairman on the Committee on Oral Examination shall facilitate in the entire process and is in-charge in taking down notes on comments/suggestions/recommendations of the committee. There should ONLY be one rubric to be used in the oral examination and will be given to the chairman.
RESEARCH TITLE
Note: The title should be ENCODED.
Strand and Section: Final Numerical Grade:
Please put a tick on the item that applies Date of Defense: ____________________
Defense Result: Passed Defense Category: Research Paper Proposal Defense
Failed/Unsatisfactory Research Paper Final Defense
With minor revisions
With major revisions
___________________________________
Chairman/Technical Expert
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Panel Member Panel Member
___________________________________ NONIEL JOHN VASQUEZ ERNO
Panel Member Research Adviser/Teacher
GAS 12 A - FAITH
/100
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT
PEER ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION
This Peer Assessment/Evaluation will be used by the lead researcher in scoring the research associate/member. The
scores will depend on the grade given by the Committee on Oral Examination. The grades earned will then be the basis
of the lead researcher for the individual member’s grade considering the gravity of work one has rendered in the
accomplishment of the research paper.
RC CODE SH-GAS-A12-C305-009
Researchers
Abstr
act
Intr
oducti
on
Dis
cussio
n
Sum
mary
Maste
ry a
nd
unders
tandin
g
Mechanic
s a
nd
docum
enta
tion
Total Score
Lead Researcher: DUTALLAS, ABIGAIL Asst. Lead Researcher: MIER, JHINVOH Research Associate: TRAZONA, JAYCOMER Research Associate: CULANAG, CATHERINE JEAN Research Associate: VILLARMEA, GYCIL FAITH Research Associate:
Research is becoming more important in higher education as evidence is accumulating that clear, inquiry-based learning, scholarship, and creative accomplishments can and do foster effective, high levels of student learning. This curricular innovation includes identifying a concrete investigative problem, carrying out the project, and sharing findings with peers. The following standards describe effective research papers.
Oral Defense Assessment Rubric (2ND Quarter Examination)
Standards Exemplary
10-9 points
Satisfactory
8-6 points
Unacceptable
5-1 points
Score Weight Total
Score
Abstract Clearly states problem
and question to be resolved; clearly summarizes method, results, and
conclusions
Summarizes problem,
method, results, and conclusions but lacks some details
Is vague about the
problem; does not provide a summary of the whole project
X 2
Introduction Provides background
research into the topic and summarizes important findings from the review of the literature; describes problem to be solved;
justifies the study; explains the significance of the problem to an audience of non-specialists
Provides background
research into the topic and describes the problem to be solved
Provides background
research into the topic but does not describe the problem to be solved; insufficient or nonexistent explanation of details to non-
specialists
X 1
Discussion Addresses the topic with clarity; organizes
and synthesizes information; and draws conclusions
Addresses the topic; lacks substantive
conclusions; sometimes digresses from topic of focus
Presents
Presents little to no clarity in formulating
conclusions and/or organization
X 2
Summary Presents a logical explanation for
findings; presents clear recommendations and/or implications for future research
Presents a logical explanation for findings
Does not adequately explain findings
X 2
Mastery and Understanding
Excellent manifestation of the mastery and
understanding of the entire research output.
Some questions pose by the panelists are answered.
Has no mastery of the paper and answers are mostly wrong.
X 2
Mechanics and
documentation
Is free or almost free of
errors of grammar, spelling, and writing mechanics; appropriately documents sources
Has errors but they do
not represent a major distraction; documents sources
Has errors that obscure
meaning of content or add confusion; neglects important sources or documents few to no resources
X 1
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
