SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

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: ABM 12 A - FAITH Final Numerical Grade: /100

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
 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-ABM-A12-C213-001

documentation
Mechanics and
understanding
Introduction

Mastery and
Discussion

Summary
Abstract
Total
Researchers Score

Lead Researcher: BORRES, ART MATTHEW

Asst. Lead Researcher: VIBAR, AIKHIN
Research Associate: BARBADILLO, CHERYL
Research Associate: PEPICO, NEANN
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 Satisfactory Unacceptable Score Weight Total
10-9 points 8-6 points 5-1 points Score
Abstract Clearly states problem Summarizes problem, Is vague about the
and question to be method, results, and problem; does not
resolved; clearly conclusions but lacks provide a summary of
summarizes method, some details the whole project X2
results, and
conclusions
Introduction Provides background Provides background Provides background
research into the topic research into the topic research into the topic
and summarizes and describes the but does not describe
important findings problem to be solved the problem to be
from the review of the solved; insufficient or
literature; describes nonexistent explanation
X1
problem to be solved; of details to non-
justifies the study; specialists
explains the
significance of the
problem to an
audience of non-
specialists
Discussion Addresses the topic Addresses the topic; Presents little to no
with clarity; organizes lacks substantive clarity in formulating
and synthesizes conclusions; sometimes conclusions and/or X2
information; and digresses from topic of organization
draws conclusions focus
Presents
Summary Presents a logical Presents a logical Does not adequately
explanation for explanation for findings explain findings
findings; presents
clear X2
recommendations
and/or implications
for future research
Mastery and Excellent Some questions pose by Has no mastery of the
Understanding manifestation of the the panelists are paper and answers are
mastery and answered. mostly wrong. X2
understanding of the
entire research output.
Mechanics and Is free or almost free of Has errors but they do Has errors that obscure
documentation errors of grammar, not represent a major meaning of content or
spelling, and writing distraction; documents add confusion; neglects X1
mechanics; sources important sources or
appropriately documents few to no
documents sources resources
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

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: ABM 12 A - FAITH Final Numerical Grade: /100

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
 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-ABM-A12-C213-002

documentation
Mechanics and
understanding
Introduction

Mastery and
Discussion

Summary
Abstract
Total
Researchers Score

Lead Researcher: ZANORIA, CIELO

Asst. Lead Researcher: MONINIO, JANELLE ROSE
Research Associate: BALINGCASAG, LYNIE
Research Associate: BERCERO, MARK
Research Associate: PASIA, SHIEN MAE
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 Satisfactory Unacceptable Score Weight Total
10-9 points 8-6 points 5-1 points Score
Abstract Clearly states problem Summarizes problem, Is vague about the
and question to be method, results, and problem; does not
resolved; clearly conclusions but lacks provide a summary of
summarizes method, some details the whole project X2
results, and
conclusions
Introduction Provides background Provides background Provides background
research into the topic research into the topic research into the topic
and summarizes and describes the but does not describe
important findings problem to be solved the problem to be
from the review of the solved; insufficient or
literature; describes nonexistent explanation
X1
problem to be solved; of details to non-
justifies the study; specialists
explains the
significance of the
problem to an
audience of non-
specialists
Discussion Addresses the topic Addresses the topic; Presents little to no
with clarity; organizes lacks substantive clarity in formulating
and synthesizes conclusions; sometimes conclusions and/or X2
information; and digresses from topic of organization
draws conclusions focus
Presents
Summary Presents a logical Presents a logical Does not adequately
explanation for explanation for findings explain findings
findings; presents
clear X2
recommendations
and/or implications
for future research
Mastery and Excellent Some questions pose by Has no mastery of the
Understanding manifestation of the the panelists are paper and answers are
mastery and answered. mostly wrong. X2
understanding of the
entire research output.
Mechanics and Is free or almost free of Has errors but they do Has errors that obscure
documentation errors of grammar, not represent a major meaning of content or
spelling, and writing distraction; documents add confusion; neglects X1
mechanics; sources important sources or
appropriately documents few to no
documents sources resources
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

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: ABM 12 A - FAITH Final Numerical Grade: /100

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
 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-ABM-A12-C213-003

documentation
Mechanics and
understanding
Introduction

Mastery and
Discussion

Summary
Abstract
Total
Researchers Score

Lead Researcher: TRINIDAD, VANESSA ANNE

Asst. Lead Researcher: CUYOS, IAN LLOYD
Research Associate: BORRES, CRISLYN
Research Associate: LUTERO, JOY ANNE
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 Satisfactory Unacceptable Score Weight Total
10-9 points 8-6 points 5-1 points Score
Abstract Clearly states problem Summarizes problem, Is vague about the
and question to be method, results, and problem; does not
resolved; clearly conclusions but lacks provide a summary of
summarizes method, some details the whole project X2
results, and
conclusions
Introduction Provides background Provides background Provides background
research into the topic research into the topic research into the topic
and summarizes and describes the but does not describe
important findings problem to be solved the problem to be
from the review of the solved; insufficient or
literature; describes nonexistent explanation
X1
problem to be solved; of details to non-
justifies the study; specialists
explains the
significance of the
problem to an
audience of non-
specialists
Discussion Addresses the topic Addresses the topic; Presents little to no
with clarity; organizes lacks substantive clarity in formulating
and synthesizes conclusions; sometimes conclusions and/or X2
information; and digresses from topic of organization
draws conclusions focus
Presents
Summary Presents a logical Presents a logical Does not adequately
explanation for explanation for findings explain findings
findings; presents
clear X2
recommendations
and/or implications
for future research
Mastery and Excellent Some questions pose by Has no mastery of the
Understanding manifestation of the the panelists are paper and answers are
mastery and answered. mostly wrong. X2
understanding of the
entire research output.
Mechanics and Is free or almost free of Has errors but they do Has errors that obscure
documentation errors of grammar, not represent a major meaning of content or
spelling, and writing distraction; documents add confusion; neglects X1
mechanics; sources important sources or
appropriately documents few to no
documents sources resources
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

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: ABM 12 A - FAITH Final Numerical Grade: /100

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
 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-ABM-A12-C213-004

documentation
Mechanics and
understanding
Introduction

Mastery and
Discussion

Summary
Abstract
Total
Researchers Score

Lead Researcher: BUGTAI, ANA THEREZ

Asst. Lead Researcher: PINO, JANLIE
Research Associate: SERICON, KATE NICOLE
Research Associate: LIMBAGA, JUBILEE
Research Associate: SIOTING, DAVID RAINE
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 Satisfactory Unacceptable Score Weight Total
10-9 points 8-6 points 5-1 points Score
Abstract Clearly states problem Summarizes problem, Is vague about the
and question to be method, results, and problem; does not
resolved; clearly conclusions but lacks provide a summary of
summarizes method, some details the whole project X2
results, and
conclusions
Introduction Provides background Provides background Provides background
research into the topic research into the topic research into the topic
and summarizes and describes the but does not describe
important findings problem to be solved the problem to be
from the review of the solved; insufficient or
literature; describes nonexistent explanation
X1
problem to be solved; of details to non-
justifies the study; specialists
explains the
significance of the
problem to an
audience of non-
specialists
Discussion Addresses the topic Addresses the topic; Presents little to no
with clarity; organizes lacks substantive clarity in formulating
and synthesizes conclusions; sometimes conclusions and/or X2
information; and digresses from topic of organization
draws conclusions focus
Presents
Summary Presents a logical Presents a logical Does not adequately
explanation for explanation for findings explain findings
findings; presents
clear X2
recommendations
and/or implications
for future research
Mastery and Excellent Some questions pose by Has no mastery of the
Understanding manifestation of the the panelists are paper and answers are
mastery and answered. mostly wrong. X2
understanding of the
entire research output.
Mechanics and Is free or almost free of Has errors but they do Has errors that obscure
documentation errors of grammar, not represent a major meaning of content or
spelling, and writing distraction; documents add confusion; neglects X1
mechanics; sources important sources or
appropriately documents few to no
documents sources resources
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

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: ABM 12 A - FAITH Final Numerical Grade: /100

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
 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-ABM-A12-C213-005

documentation
Mechanics and
understanding
Introduction

Mastery and
Discussion

Summary
Abstract
Total
Researchers Score

Lead Researcher: ENOLBA, LARA MAE

Asst. Lead Researcher: PRICOLLES, ANNE
Research Associate: GARCISO, CLARICE
Research Associate: AÑABIEZA, A-JAY
Research Associate: REQUIRON, CHLOIE CLAIRE
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 Satisfactory Unacceptable Score Weight Total
10-9 points 8-6 points 5-1 points Score
Abstract Clearly states problem Summarizes problem, Is vague about the
and question to be method, results, and problem; does not
resolved; clearly conclusions but lacks provide a summary of
summarizes method, some details the whole project X2
results, and
conclusions
Introduction Provides background Provides background Provides background
research into the topic research into the topic research into the topic
and summarizes and describes the but does not describe
important findings problem to be solved the problem to be
from the review of the solved; insufficient or
literature; describes nonexistent explanation
X1
problem to be solved; of details to non-
justifies the study; specialists
explains the
significance of the
problem to an
audience of non-
specialists
Discussion Addresses the topic Addresses the topic; Presents little to no
with clarity; organizes lacks substantive clarity in formulating
and synthesizes conclusions; sometimes conclusions and/or X2
information; and digresses from topic of organization
draws conclusions focus
Presents
Summary Presents a logical Presents a logical Does not adequately
explanation for explanation for findings explain findings
findings; presents
clear X2
recommendations
and/or implications
for future research
Mastery and Excellent Some questions pose by Has no mastery of the
Understanding manifestation of the the panelists are paper and answers are
mastery and answered. mostly wrong. X2
understanding of the
entire research output.
Mechanics and Is free or almost free of Has errors but they do Has errors that obscure
documentation errors of grammar, not represent a major meaning of content or
spelling, and writing distraction; documents add confusion; neglects X1
mechanics; sources important sources or
appropriately documents few to no
documents sources resources
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

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: ABM 12 A - FAITH Final Numerical Grade: /100

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
 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-ABM-A12-C213-006

documentation
Mechanics and
understanding
Introduction

Mastery and
Discussion

Summary
Abstract
Total
Researchers Score

Lead Researcher: AGRAVANTE, JAYDEN

Asst. Lead Researcher: SURBAN, SHAIRA
Research Associate: MICULOB, LUIE CELLA
Research Associate: DEMAFELIS, STEPHANIE
Research Associate: GOMEZ, JENIE
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 Satisfactory Unacceptable Score Weight Total
10-9 points 8-6 points 5-1 points Score
Abstract Clearly states problem Summarizes problem, Is vague about the
and question to be method, results, and problem; does not
resolved; clearly conclusions but lacks provide a summary of
summarizes method, some details the whole project X2
results, and
conclusions
Introduction Provides background Provides background Provides background
research into the topic research into the topic research into the topic
and summarizes and describes the but does not describe
important findings problem to be solved the problem to be
from the review of the solved; insufficient or
literature; describes nonexistent explanation
X1
problem to be solved; of details to non-
justifies the study; specialists
explains the
significance of the
problem to an
audience of non-
specialists
Discussion Addresses the topic Addresses the topic; Presents little to no
with clarity; organizes lacks substantive clarity in formulating
and synthesizes conclusions; sometimes conclusions and/or X2
information; and digresses from topic of organization
draws conclusions focus
Presents
Summary Presents a logical Presents a logical Does not adequately
explanation for explanation for findings explain findings
findings; presents
clear X2
recommendations
and/or implications
for future research
Mastery and Excellent Some questions pose by Has no mastery of the
Understanding manifestation of the the panelists are paper and answers are
mastery and answered. mostly wrong. X2
understanding of the
entire research output.
Mechanics and Is free or almost free of Has errors but they do Has errors that obscure
documentation errors of grammar, not represent a major meaning of content or
spelling, and writing distraction; documents add confusion; neglects X1
mechanics; sources important sources or
appropriately documents few to no
documents sources resources
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

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: ABM 12 A - FAITH Final Numerical Grade: /100

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
 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-ABM-A12-C213-007

documentation
Mechanics and
understanding
Introduction

Mastery and
Discussion

Summary
Abstract
Total
Researchers Score

Lead Researcher: HIMAYA, LEA JANE

Asst. Lead Researcher: CADAMPOG, JHOY CAROL
Research Associate: ANTOLIJAO, ASHLY NICOLE
Research Associate: ORTEGA, KRISSHA
Research Associate: DEL ALMOCERA, LIZETTE
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 Satisfactory Unacceptable Score Weight Total
10-9 points 8-6 points 5-1 points Score
Abstract Clearly states problem Summarizes problem, Is vague about the
and question to be method, results, and problem; does not
resolved; clearly conclusions but lacks provide a summary of
summarizes method, some details the whole project X2
results, and
conclusions
Introduction Provides background Provides background Provides background
research into the topic research into the topic research into the topic
and summarizes and describes the but does not describe
important findings problem to be solved the problem to be
from the review of the solved; insufficient or
literature; describes nonexistent explanation
X1
problem to be solved; of details to non-
justifies the study; specialists
explains the
significance of the
problem to an
audience of non-
specialists
Discussion Addresses the topic Addresses the topic; Presents little to no
with clarity; organizes lacks substantive clarity in formulating
and synthesizes conclusions; sometimes conclusions and/or X2
information; and digresses from topic of organization
draws conclusions focus
Presents
Summary Presents a logical Presents a logical Does not adequately
explanation for explanation for findings explain findings
findings; presents
clear X2
recommendations
and/or implications
for future research
Mastery and Excellent Some questions pose by Has no mastery of the
Understanding manifestation of the the panelists are paper and answers are
mastery and answered. mostly wrong. X2
understanding of the
entire research output.
Mechanics and Is free or almost free of Has errors but they do Has errors that obscure
documentation errors of grammar, not represent a major meaning of content or
spelling, and writing distraction; documents add confusion; neglects X1
mechanics; sources important sources or
appropriately documents few to no
documents sources resources
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

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: ABM 12 A - FAITH Final Numerical Grade: /100

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
 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-ABM-A12-C213-008

documentation
Mechanics and
understanding
Introduction

Mastery and
Discussion

Summary
Abstract
Total
Researchers Score

Lead Researcher: TAPALLA, JAN LLOYD

Asst. Lead Researcher: LARA, DONNA MARIE
Research Associate: MANTOS, MARIA ELENA
Research Associate: DOYASAN, ARCHIE
Research Associate: PALANG, IVY JANE
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 Satisfactory Unacceptable Score Weight Total
10-9 points 8-6 points 5-1 points Score
Abstract Clearly states problem Summarizes problem, Is vague about the
and question to be method, results, and problem; does not
resolved; clearly conclusions but lacks provide a summary of
summarizes method, some details the whole project X2
results, and
conclusions
Introduction Provides background Provides background Provides background
research into the topic research into the topic research into the topic
and summarizes and describes the but does not describe
important findings problem to be solved the problem to be
from the review of the solved; insufficient or
literature; describes nonexistent explanation
X1
problem to be solved; of details to non-
justifies the study; specialists
explains the
significance of the
problem to an
audience of non-
specialists
Discussion Addresses the topic Addresses the topic; Presents little to no
with clarity; organizes lacks substantive clarity in formulating
and synthesizes conclusions; sometimes conclusions and/or X2
information; and digresses from topic of organization
draws conclusions focus
Presents
Summary Presents a logical Presents a logical Does not adequately
explanation for explanation for findings explain findings
findings; presents
clear X2
recommendations
and/or implications
for future research
Mastery and Excellent Some questions pose by Has no mastery of the
Understanding manifestation of the the panelists are paper and answers are
mastery and answered. mostly wrong. X2
understanding of the
entire research output.
Mechanics and Is free or almost free of Has errors but they do Has errors that obscure
documentation errors of grammar, not represent a major meaning of content or
spelling, and writing distraction; documents add confusion; neglects X1
mechanics; sources important sources or
appropriately documents few to no
documents sources resources
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

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: ABM 12 A - FAITH Final Numerical Grade: /100

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
 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-ABM-A12-C213-009

documentation
Mechanics and
understanding
Introduction

Mastery and
Discussion

Summary
Abstract
Total
Researchers Score

Lead Researcher: MANATAD, MARY

Asst. Lead Researcher: SALVADOR, ILAIJAH
Research Associate: ALBA, MARIALYN
Research Associate: URSABIA, NIÑA ROSE
Research Associate: HAYAG, DAVE LYNDON
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 Satisfactory Unacceptable Score Weight Total
10-9 points 8-6 points 5-1 points Score
Abstract Clearly states problem Summarizes problem, Is vague about the
and question to be method, results, and problem; does not
resolved; clearly conclusions but lacks provide a summary of
summarizes method, some details the whole project X2
results, and
conclusions
Introduction Provides background Provides background Provides background
research into the topic research into the topic research into the topic
and summarizes and describes the but does not describe
important findings problem to be solved the problem to be
from the review of the solved; insufficient or
literature; describes nonexistent explanation
X1
problem to be solved; of details to non-
justifies the study; specialists
explains the
significance of the
problem to an
audience of non-
specialists
Discussion Addresses the topic Addresses the topic; Presents little to no
with clarity; organizes lacks substantive clarity in formulating
and synthesizes conclusions; sometimes conclusions and/or X2
information; and digresses from topic of organization
draws conclusions focus
Presents
Summary Presents a logical Presents a logical Does not adequately
explanation for explanation for findings explain findings
findings; presents
clear X2
recommendations
and/or implications
for future research
Mastery and Excellent Some questions pose by Has no mastery of the
Understanding manifestation of the the panelists are paper and answers are
mastery and answered. mostly wrong. X2
understanding of the
entire research output.
Mechanics and Is free or almost free of Has errors but they do Has errors that obscure
documentation errors of grammar, not represent a major meaning of content or
spelling, and writing distraction; documents add confusion; neglects X1
mechanics; sources important sources or
appropriately documents few to no
documents sources resources
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

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: ABM 12 A - FAITH Final Numerical Grade: /100

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
 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-ABM-A12-C213-010

documentation
Mechanics and
understanding
Introduction

Mastery and
Discussion

Summary
Abstract
Total
Researchers Score

Lead Researcher: BACLA-AN, ELJANE

Asst. Lead Researcher: CABALLERO, KIMBERLY
Research Associate: COYOCA, IVY
Research Associate: JATICO, ANSHERINA MAE
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 Satisfactory Unacceptable Score Weight Total
10-9 points 8-6 points 5-1 points Score
Abstract Clearly states problem Summarizes problem, Is vague about the
and question to be method, results, and problem; does not
resolved; clearly conclusions but lacks provide a summary of
summarizes method, some details the whole project X2
results, and
conclusions
Introduction Provides background Provides background Provides background
research into the topic research into the topic research into the topic
and summarizes and describes the but does not describe
important findings problem to be solved the problem to be
from the review of the solved; insufficient or
literature; describes nonexistent explanation
X1
problem to be solved; of details to non-
justifies the study; specialists
explains the
significance of the
problem to an
audience of non-
specialists
Discussion Addresses the topic Addresses the topic; Presents little to no
with clarity; organizes lacks substantive clarity in formulating
and synthesizes conclusions; sometimes conclusions and/or X2
information; and digresses from topic of organization
draws conclusions focus
Presents
Summary Presents a logical Presents a logical Does not adequately
explanation for explanation for findings explain findings
findings; presents
clear X2
recommendations
and/or implications
for future research
Mastery and Excellent Some questions pose by Has no mastery of the
Understanding manifestation of the the panelists are paper and answers are
mastery and answered. mostly wrong. X2
understanding of the
entire research output.
Mechanics and Is free or almost free of Has errors but they do Has errors that obscure
documentation errors of grammar, not represent a major meaning of content or
spelling, and writing distraction; documents add confusion; neglects X1
mechanics; sources important sources or
appropriately documents few to no
documents sources resources
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu
 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT

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: ABM 12 A - FAITH Final Numerical Grade: /100

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
 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-ABM-A12-C213-011

documentation
Mechanics and
understanding
Introduction

Mastery and
Discussion

Summary
Abstract
Total
Researchers Score

Lead Researcher: AÑORA, CHRESIA MAE

Asst. Lead Researcher: JUDILLA, CAMILLE
Research Associate: CAWAYAN, CHRISSY MAE
Research Associate: QUIROS, THERESE
Research Associate: OBLIGADO, KATHLEEN
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 Satisfactory Unacceptable Score Weight Total
10-9 points 8-6 points 5-1 points Score
Abstract Clearly states problem Summarizes problem, Is vague about the
and question to be method, results, and problem; does not
resolved; clearly conclusions but lacks provide a summary of
summarizes method, some details the whole project X2
results, and
conclusions
Introduction Provides background Provides background Provides background
research into the topic research into the topic research into the topic
and summarizes and describes the but does not describe
important findings problem to be solved the problem to be
from the review of the solved; insufficient or
literature; describes nonexistent explanation
X1
problem to be solved; of details to non-
justifies the study; specialists
explains the
significance of the
problem to an
audience of non-
specialists
Discussion Addresses the topic Addresses the topic; Presents little to no
with clarity; organizes lacks substantive clarity in formulating
and synthesizes conclusions; sometimes conclusions and/or X2
information; and digresses from topic of organization
draws conclusions focus
Presents
Summary Presents a logical Presents a logical Does not adequately
explanation for explanation for findings explain findings
findings; presents
clear X2
recommendations
and/or implications
for future research
Mastery and Excellent Some questions pose by Has no mastery of the
Understanding manifestation of the the panelists are paper and answers are
mastery and answered. mostly wrong. X2
understanding of the
entire research output.
Mechanics and Is free or almost free of Has errors but they do Has errors that obscure
documentation errors of grammar, not represent a major meaning of content or
spelling, and writing distraction; documents add confusion; neglects X1
mechanics; sources important sources or
appropriately documents few to no
documents sources resources
Sources: 5/13/2013 – Dorothy Mitstifer, Kappa Omicron Nu