Practical Research 2

1st semester | SY 2019-2020

Peer and Self Evaluation
Research Title:
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Group no.: ________________________ Year and Section: _______________________ Date: ____________________________

Write the names of ALL members of your group in the space provided. The list must be alphabetically arranged.

Group Last Name First Name Middle Name

#1
#2
#3
#4
Members
#5
#6
#7
#8

Instruction: Evaluate yourself and your groupmates using the rubrics provided below. Follow the indicated rating scale
and compute for the total score of all members. Please practice the value of Fortitude, Excellence and Uprightness at all
times. Thank you!
Rating Scale: 4 = Strongly Agree 3 = Agree 2 = Disagree 1 = Strongly Disagree

Members
General Attribute
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

ATTENDANCE: Was dependable in attending group meeting.

WILLINGNESS: Willingly accepted the assigned tasks.

EXPECTED OUTPUT: Completed work on time or made alternative
arrangements.
TEAM WORK: Helped others with their work when needed.

ACCURACY: Did work accurately and completely.

Contributed a fair share to weekly papers.

Worked well with other group members.

Overall was a valuable member of the team.

TOTAL SCORE

Reflection: Briefly describe your learnings and experiences using the prompts given below.
Roses Buds Thorns
(strengths, positive, good) (potential, opportunities, possibilities) (weaknesses, negative, bad)
(the subject) (the subject) (the subject)

(my group) (my group) (my group)

(myself) (myself) (myself)

Submitted by: Noted by:

______________________________________ Ma. Rebecca M. Baloloy

Signature over printed name of evaluator Research Adviser
 Rubrics for Proposal Paper

Research Title: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Date: ___________________ Year and Section: _________________________

TECHNICAL CONTENT (75 POINTS)

A. Format and Table of Contents (25 points)

10 - 9 8-7 6-5 4-3 2-1

1. The front page is filled with all required and necessary
information.

2. The entries in the table of contents are listed with correct

page numbers (pages are at the upper right corner of each
page starting from the title page section of the paper).

3. The alignment and indentions are observed properly based

on the prescribed format.

4. The margins and spacing before and after the paragraphs

are maintained based on the prescribed format.

Raw Score:

B. Bibliographic entry/ References & Citations (25 points)

10 - 9 8-7 6-5 4-3 2-1

1. Reference follow the 6th edition APA style.

2. Reference list is arranged in alphabetical order.

3. Correct format is evident (including the proper indention

and punctuation marks).

4. Review of related literature and studies of the research is

written properly (parenthetical and in-text).

Raw Score

C. Appendices (25 points)

10 - 9 8-7 6-5 4-3 2-1

1. Appendices are properly labeled using Roman numerals and

description.

2. The instrument for data collection is completely attached.

Raw Score:

Summary of Score:

Raw Score Equivalent Score

𝑹𝒂𝒘 𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆
( ) 𝒙 𝟐𝟓
𝑯𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆

1. Format and table of contents _________________ _________________

2. Bibliographic entry/References & Citations _________________ _________________
3. Appendices _________________ _________________

TOTAL Score: _________________

______________________________________
Signature of Panelist

______________________________________
Signature of Adviser
 Rubric for Proposal Defense

Research Title: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Research Proponents: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Date: ________________________________ Year and Section: _________________________

Exceeds Partially meets Does not meet

General Performance Meet expectations
expectations (10 - expectations expectations SCORE
Attribute element (7 -6 points)
8 points) (5 - 4 points) (3 - 1 points)

All information is Most information is The information is The information is

Organization organized in a clear organized in a clear inconsistently incomplete and
and logical way. and logical way. organized. disorganized.
Quality of
Presentation
The presenters have
The presenters have The presenters have
Presentation excellent The presenters have poor
good communication limited
style communication communication skills
skills communication skills
skills

The presenters show The presenters show The presenters show a The presenter shows an
Depth of superior depth of an acceptable depth few depth of unacceptable depth of
knowledge (x2) knowledge in the of knowledge in the knowledge in the knowledge in the
presentation. presentation. presentation. presentation.

Presentation Presentation
Presentation reflects Presentation does not
Cognitive Critical thinking reflects well- reflects above
minimal/ limited reflect well-developed
Skills (x2) developed critical average critical
critical thinking skills critical thinking skills
thinking skills thinking skills

Presentation Presentation is limited

interconnects and Presentation draws and narrow in scope Presentation is limited and
Assimilation of
extends knowledge knowledge from and draws limited narrow in scope and
knowledge
from several several disciplines connections from discipline.
disciplines several discipline.

Majority of the
All responses are Half of the responses Few of the responses are
responses are
Completeness complete and are complete and complete and
complete and
comprehensive comprehensive comprehensive
Response to comprehensive
questions Responses are
Responses are Responses are good
Professionalism appropriate for well- Responses reflect qualities
reflective of a well- enough for middle-
when challenged adjusted of beginning researchers
adept researcher level researchers
researchers

TOTAL:

Remarks:

1. Commendable Points:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Improvable Points:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________
Panelist/Evaluator