GROUP NO.

COLLEGE OF ST. CATHERINE

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Thesis Defense Rating Sheets
TITLE OF PROJECT/PAPER:

QUALITATIVE RATING
The qualitative rating aims to determine the overall assessment of the thesis/software project (herein referred as project) of the students. Panel members have to deliberate which
of the remarks below should be given. They must choose ONLY ONE remark. The project should be qualitatively assessed using the same criteria of the Quantitative Rating .

[ ] PASSED
- A Passed qualitative rating is given if the panel members perceived that the project satisfactorily met all criteria.

[ ] CONDITIONAL PASS
- This rating is a border line between a Pass and Redefense remarks. This rating may be given if the panel members viewed that 1) the project needs revisions, 2) the
revisions can be done within three days, and 3) there is a need to present the revisions to at least one of the panel members.

[ ] REDEFENSE
- If the following conditions are met, then the rating Redefense is justifiable: 1) the project needs revisions, 2) the revisions requires one week to comply, and 3) the panel
members feel that there is a need to present the revisions to the three-man committee.

[ ] FAILED
- The project/paper did not satisfactorily meet all of the criteria.
- For the Software Project Stage, the minimum requirements are not satisfied.

Reminders:
1. The Passed, Conditional Pass, and Failed rating marks should have quantitative equivalents. Thus, the Quantitative Rating should be utilized after the Qualitative Assessment.
2. A Software Project that did not meet the minimum requirements means that Functionality, Completeness, and Reliability of the software can no longer be assessed. Hence, a Failed
mark should be given.
3. Exhaustive comments/suggestions/recommendations SHOULD be written in the Revision Lists.
4. Individual Rating is utilized only if the students have a qualitative rating of Passed.
5. Ensure that the Qualitative and Quantitative Ratings corroborate each other.

1|3
QUANTITATIVE RATING
Assessment Tool for Software Project Stage
CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 ASSESSMENT
Exemplary! The program was able The program was able to The program was The program was able to The program DID
The program performed to perform ALL perform MOST functions able to perform perform only FEW NOT function at all.
Functionality
beyond the required functions as specified. as specified. MANY functions as functions as specified.
expectations. specified.
Exemplary! The program contains The program contains The program contains The program contains The program DID
The program provides ALL essential modules. MOST of the required MANY of the ONLY A PORTION of NOT CONTAIN any
Completeness other modules beyond modules. required modules. the required modules. of the required
the required modules.
expectations.
The codes are bug-free The software is error- Errors are evident but Errors are evident There are errors that There are so many
and follow coding free. they do not compromise and they compromise affect the overall errors to the extent
Reliability standards. the performance of the the performance of software performance. that the software no
software. the software to some longer performs its
extent. functions.
Exemplary! A comprehensive paper A comprehensive paper is A comprehensive A comprehensive paper A comprehensive
Paper The paper surpassed is highly evident. evident. paper is moderately is slightly evident. paper is not evident.
expectations. evident.
The proponents The proponents The proponents answered The proponents The proponents answered The proponents
Mastery of the expressed their responses answered all questions most of the questions answered many of only few questions answered none of the
Subject correctly and concisely. are answered correctly. correctly. the questions correctly. questions correctly.
correctly.
TOTAL(See Legend)

LEGEND
POINT
POINTS % EQUI S % EQUI
30 100 1.00 21 85 2.25
29 98 1.00 20 83 2.25
28 97 1.25 19 82 2.50
27 95 1.25 18 80 2.50
26 93 1.50 17 78 2.75
25 92 1.50 16 77 2.75
24 90 1.75 15 75 3.00
23 88 2.00 5 to 14 58-73 5.00
22 87 2.00
2|3
INDIVIDUAL RATING
Rate the students on the following criteria using the scale below

1 Poor 2 Below average 3 Average 4 Above average 5 Good 6 Very Good

CRITERIA
(Name of Student1) (Name of Student2) (Name of Student3) (Name of Student4)
Intelligent Response
- The student exhibits cleverness in
answering questions.
Respectful response
- The student answers questions in a
polite and considerate manner and
tone.
Communication Skills
- The student can convey his/her ideas
flawlessly.
Confidence
- The student demonstrates poise even
under pressure.
Attire
- The student wears appropriate and
professional-looking clothing.
TOTAL (See Legend)

RATED BY:

_____________________________________
(SIGNATURE OVER PRINTED NAME)

DATE:
_____________________________________ 3|3