University of Cebu – Pri

Senior High School Department

J. Alcantara St., Cebu City

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ORAL DEFENSE AND RESEARCH PAPER EVALUATION

Research Title: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Group: Leader: ______________________________ Grade, Strand and Section: ____________________________________

PART I. EVALUATORS’ RATING

Directions: Please rate each subsection of the manuscript based on the criteria given below.
CRITERIA Evaluators
Points Corrections/Suggestions
1 2 3 (What improvements can be
Introduction made?)
Rationale (4 points)
 Rationale strongly argues and justifies the importance of the
conduct of the study providing sufficient contextual background
of the chosen topic.
Literature Review (8 points)
 Theoretical and conceptual framework is clearly articulated and
supported with a schema.
 The study is sufficient and justified in terms of existing
literature.
 The selected literature are appropriately discussed, sufficiently
covered and recent (2013 or later) in relation to the research
topic.
 Strengths and weaknesses of previous researches are clearly
shown and critically assessed in relation to the study
 Opposing and alternative views on the research topic, approach,
strategy, and design are appropriately considered.
 Inadequate testing, related, parallel and contradictory pieces of
evidence or conclusions from previous research/literature are
clearly shown.
 Referencing style (APA) is correct and there is no evidence of
plagiarism. The subsequent bibliography/reference list is
correct and appropriate.
Research Objectives (4 points)
 Main and specific objectives are lucid, understandable and
consistent in use of terms and concepts.
 Research or statistical hypotheses are based on the stated
objectives.
Materials and Methods (8 points)
 The research design is clearly stated and fully described.
 Thoroughly described how research respondents were chosen,
sample size estimation and sampling techniques adopted.
 The statement of the research locale is plain, simple and gives a
clear background of the research setting.
 Research instrument used is fully described (must be attached
on the appendices).
 Fully describes the data collection methods employed,
highlighting and specific assumption or requirement for using
them and whether these were met.
 Clearly and adequately describes the data analysis methods used
and justifies their use in the study.
 Highlights any specific assumption or requirement for use of the
analysis methods including the statistical analysis, presentation,
and discussion.
Results (8 points)
 The discussion of findings and analysis are methodologically
sound, appropriate. complete, and accurate as the main
meat/substance of the study.
 All the stated research specific objectives are clearly and
appropriately addressed, answered and explained.
 The findings are clearly interpreted and their implications are
substantially provided and comprehensively discussed.
 Research or statistical hypothesis are addressed and discussed.
 Summary tables and charts are fully and appropriately titled,
described, discussed to reflect salient findings, patterns, and
trends which reinforce the answers to the stated research
objectives.
 Discussions of findings and results are interlinked with the
literature reviews to show affirmation, parallelism or
contradictory results or related previous studies in the
discipline.
Discussion
Discussion(8 points)
 Discussions of findings and results are interlinked with the
literature reviews to show affirmation, parallelism or
contradictory results or related previous studies in the
discipline.
 Discussions of various literature should be supported with
citation.
Conclusion (2 points)
 The conclusions are relevant and appropriate to the research
area and the research objectives.
 The researcher has clearly and adequately shown how the
conclusions are supported by findings, analysis, and discussion
of results.
 The conclusions are not mixed, combined or crowded with
finding statements, analysis of results, implications and other
unnecessary sentences.
References and Appendices (8 points)
 Reference citations are complete.
 Referencing style is correctly observed and followed.
 Appendices are complete which include at least the research
instrument, transmittal letters, data tables, coding tables,
transcripts, audio recordings, and informed consent.
TOTAL POINTS (50 points)

Scoring system:

46-50 Very Good to excellent paper. The paper is considered very meritorious.
36-45 Good paper. The paper is most likely to be approved subject to minor revision and
improvement.
30-35 Fair paper. The paper is not deemed to be meritorious and needs major revision and
improvement.
<30 Poor paper. The paper is not acceptable.

MS.RHEA MAE VALENZONA

Research Adviser

______________________________ ________________________________
Member Member

_____________________________________
Chairman
PART II. ADVISER’S RATING

Directions: Please put a check ( √ ) on what best describes the individual presentation and quality of response to
questions by each member of the group. (For the Adviser Only).

Authors CRITERIA Total

Individual Presentation Quality of Response to Individual Score
Questions (Critical
Thinking)
5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
1.
.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.