DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY – DASMARIÑAS

College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 9 (ARCH511/L) ASSESSMENT RUBRIC for Proj. based proposal
(Topic/Title Defense)

THESIS PROPONENT : IGNACIO, IAN CARL P.

________________________________________________________________ Adviser:________________________
ARCH. JAMES TEPACE
PROPOSED TOPIC/TITLE :
_______________________________________________________________
PROPOSED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FOR ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY □ approved □ disapproved

A B
CRITERIA WT EXCEEDS
EXPECTATION
The accomplishment is
GENERAL DESCRIPTION exemplary approaching to
perfection
PROBLEM & ITS SETTING 50%
Clearly identifies and
Introduction 20 summarizes main issues
(Rationale, Background, and successfully explains
why/how problems or ques-
Problem Statement)
tions are realized; Able to
synthesize and adrressed
the identified issues with
anticipated solution and
expected output.
(20-16 pts)
Goal and Objectives were
Project Goals & Objectives 15 clearly identified for validity
and attainability. All state-
(The End Vision of the ment are cohesive to design
Proponent, List of Outputs) process and can be transla-
ted to architectural design
solution.
(15 pts)
Significance & Expected Clearly discuss and satisfy
Output Specifically identifies the 10 the importance of the topic.
opportunity, perceived contribution to Answers were given in clear
its intended primary users, the and logical sequence.
society, and architecture
(10 - 8 pts)
SATISFACTORY
Work is above of
acceptable criterion with
only few/minor comments
and citation.
Successfully identifies and
summarizes the main
issues, and to some
extent only few were not
clearly explain why/how
problems are realized.
Able to synthesize and
adrressed the identified
issues with few antici-
pated solution.
(15 – 11 pts)
Project Goal and objectives
are clearly identified. Most
of the ideas listed are co-
hesive to design process
and can be translated to ar -
chitectural design solution.
(14 – 10 pts)
Reasonably argue the
importance of topic /
project. Most answers
given are in clear and
logical sequence
(7 - 6 pts)
C D
MET CRITERIA
Work is in range of
acceptable criterion with
more than half of the
requirements are satisfied.
Able to identifies main
issues/problem situation
but fails to summarize
or explain them clearly
or sufficiently.
(10 – 5 pts)
Some of the ideas are
vague. Half of the ideas
are cohesive to design
process that can be
translated to architectural
design solution.
(9 – 5 pts)
Reasonably argue the
importance of topic /
project. Less than half
of argument given are
vague and irrelevant.
(5 - 3 pts)
E
LESS SATISFACTORY NOT RATING
ADDRESSED
Basic knowledge and Work is below the
understanding yet acceptable
translation and application criterion.
did not met expectation.
Unable to clearly identify, Fails to identify,
connect or support the summarize, or
issue to the propose explain the main
topic based on the problem or ques-
information presented. tion. Represents
L__
the issues inaccu-
rately or inappro-
priately.
(3 pts) ( 0 pt )
More than half of the ideas The ideas are
are vague. Not more than vague. The
half are cohesive to design intention is too
process and cannot be ambitious and
M__
translated to architectural unattainable in
design solution. practical sense.
(3 pts) ( 0 pt )
Most argument presen- There is no sig-
ted are hazy and nificance & ex-
irrelevant. No target pected output to N__
beneficiaries and too society.No spe-
shallow contribution to cific beneficiaries.
society.
(1 pt) ( 0 pt )
 Articulately explains the limit
Scope and Delimitation 5 and extent of the study and
Identifies the limit or extent of the methodological flaws in
study. Cite items/issues not inluded in outstanding and logical
argument.
the study.
(5 pts)
THEORETICAL 30%
FRAMEWORK
Review of Related Literature Cites related previous
(Local & Foreign) and 20 studies or projects. These
Conceptual Framework collection of studies were
Paradigm analyzed for differences
A summary/synopsis of similar and commonalities about
projects/literature that may have the proposed project.
directly or indirectly given the idea or Significance to the topic is
notion what project to propose. unquestionable.
(20 pts)
Able to formulate tentative
Tentative Site 10 site selection criterion fitted
Criteria for the proposed design
project.
(10 pts)
PRESENTATION 20%
The student clearly explai-
Mastery and Oral 10 ned in English & satisfac-
Communication Skill torily answered the argu-
ments and inquiries raised
from the panel of jurors.
The posture and attire
shows readiness to become
professional.
(10 pts)
Over-all presentation is
Visual Enhancement 10 flawless and commendable.
A very professional output.
(10 pts)
100
Prepared by : HPG 2018
Design 9 Coordinator
Student does a good job
in outlining the limit and
extent of the study and
methodological flaws.
(4pts)
Cites related previous
studies or projects. but
commonalities and
differences are not
covered in as much depth,
or as explicit, as
expected. Significance to
the course is evident.
(19 – 10 pts)
Site selection criterion is
nearly specific for the
proposed design project.
(9 – 7 pts)
Demonstrate strong core
knowledge of topic,
Strong evidence of
preparation, rehearsal,
and use of prior feedback
received. Posture and
attire is fairly acceptable
(9 – 7 pts)
Over-all presentation is
neat and organized.
Meets the expectation of a
Lasallian Graduate.
(9 – 7 pts)
Panelist: __________________________________________
Signature over printed name
Student attempts to outline
potential methodological
flaws in the study, and is
partially successful in
doing so.
(3 pts)
Cites related studies or
project. Significance to
the course is evident
but does not summarize
or explain them clearly
or sufficiently.Concep-
tual framework needs
modification.
(9 - 5 pts)
Most of the criterion are
too general and not
specific for the pro-
posed design project
(6 -5 pts)
Some evidence of
preparation, rehearsal,
and use of prior feed-
back received.Attire is
good but posture shows
lack of confidence.
(6 -5 pts)
Over-all presentation
approaches the
expectation of a
Lasallian Graduate
(6 -5 pts)
Student attempts to outline Student does not
potential methodological outline potential
flaws of the study, but does methodological O__
so sparsely and/or ineffec- flaws of the study
tively.
(1 pt) ( 0 pt )
Related Studies/ projects No Related
are of little significance to Literature/ related
the proposed project. projects/ related
Synthesis for further studies was P__
study enhancement were presented.
not clearly explained.
Conceptual framework is
confusing and blurred.
(3 pts) ( 0 pt )
Criterions are too No Criterion was
general. It does not presented. Q__
demonstrate certain level
of novelty or innovation.
(3 pts) ( 0 pt )
Little evidence of Overall impact is
preparation, rehearsal, not convincing.
and use of prior feedback
received. Posture and R__
attire evidently shows
unpreparedness.
(3 pts) ( 0 pt )
An attempt but did not Output is sloppy
met the level of and S__
expectation for a senior unprofessional
student.
(3 - 1 pt.) ( 0 pt )
TOTAL POINTS
Date: _______________