P. 1
Oral Defense Criteria2

Oral Defense Criteria2

|Views: 2|Likes:
keme
keme

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: jesperdomincilbayaua on May 30, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/21/2014

pdf

text

original

University of La Salette College of Nursing Santiago City ORAL DEFENSE RATING SHEET Final Oral Defense Group No.

:__________________________ Date:___________________

A. RESEARCH PAPER – 70% Below is the rating scale of values on each of the response options by which to determine the quality of each evaluated part of the manuscript. Point Score Rating 5 4 3 2 1 Range Interval 4.51 – 5. 00 3.51 – 4.00 2.51 – 3.50 1.51 – 2.50 1.00 – 1.50 Equivalent Description Rating Excellent Very Satisfactory Satisfactory Fair Poor Standard of Performance Level A Standard of performance, the quality of which exceeds above average level. It is equivalent to 96 – 100% A standard of performance, the quality of which is above average. It is equivalent to 91 – 95%. A standard of performance, the quality of which is average level. It is equivalent to 86 – 90%. A standard of performance, the quality of which is below average level. It is equivalent to 80 – 85%. A standard of performance, the quality off which is poorly executed. It is equivalent to below 79%.

Research Title 1. The title of the Research study was specific, concise and complete 2. The research title was consistent with the statement of the problem and research paradigm. Theoretical / Conceptual Framework 1. The research study was based on a theoretical framework, a conceptual framework of both 2. The concepts of the research / study were illustrated in research paradigm. Statement of the Problem 1. The main problem was consistent with the research title and research paradigm. 2. The sub problem or minor problems were related to the main problem. Statement of Hypothesis 1. The hypothesis was consistent with what the researcher wanted to test and prove. 2. The hypothesis was testable. Scope and Delimitations 1. The researcher specified that extent and boundaries of the study or those that are included and not included in the study. Review of Related Literature and Studies 1. The researcher included both local and foreign studies and literature. 2. The researcher was able to establish relationship of the present research / study to related literature and studies. Population and Sampling 1. The sampling size was representative of the population. 2. The sampling technique used was appropriate to study at hand. Statistical Treatment 1. The statistical test applied by the researcher was appropriate and correct. Analysis of Data 1. The dates were completely presented. 2. The date were correctly analyzed and interpreted. 3. The tables and figures were properly and correctly labeled Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

The findings were arranged based on the statement of the problem. The Table of Contents. 4. The recommendations were based on the conclusions of the study.1. The conclusions were drawn from the finding of the study. Bibliography. 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Total Points: ______________________________________ Average Points: ___________________________________ Weighted Average: ________________________________ . 2. and List of Appendices were correctly written according to the prescribed format. The findings of the study were the answer to the statements of the problem. Others 1. 3. List of Tables and Figures.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->