CVE 199: UNDERGRADUATE THESIS COE-BSCEN

Proposal Guidelines

CVE 199: Undergraduate Thesis

RESEARCH PROPOSAL GUIDELINES

A. Guidelines for Proposal Preparation and Submission

1. Proponents must write the research proposal using the prescribed template (Thesis
Proposal Template) with the guidance of an assigned research adviser who is a faculty
member of the department.

2. All the required contents or elements indicated in the template must, at the minimum,
be present in the proposal.

3. Proposals can only be submitted for a hearing upon proper endorsement of the
research adviser.

4. Copies of the proposal documents must be handed over by the proponents to the
Thesis Panel members not later than 2 days after submission of the final research
proposal documents. Thesis Panel members should sign the acknowledgement of
receipt form acknowledging that they have personally received copies of the
undergraduate research proposal manuscript, Research Proposal Guidelines and an
electronic copy of CVE 199 Form-2a – Reviewer’s Comments v2021.

5. *Proponents must also submit online a digital copy of the proposal via Turnitin (or
equivalent) not later than the scheduled proposal hearing.

Prepared by: CE Dep’t Status: Issue Date: 8/2021 Next review date: August 2022 Page
Approved by: CE Dep’t Version: Effective Date: 8/2021 Document owner: CE Dep’t 1
1.0
 CVE 199: UNDERGRADUATE THESIS COE-BSCEN
Proposal Guidelines

B. Guidelines for Proposal Review and Hearing

1. The Thesis Panel is constituted by qualified faculty members of the Department of

Civil Engineering (or coming from other departments who have ample track record in
research area). The committee includes at least two faculty members, the Thesis
Adviser and the Thesis Co-Adviser (if there is any).

2. Each member of the Thesis Panel assesses and evaluates the proposal using the rubric
(Research Proposal Rubric) prior to the proposal hearing schedule.

3. On the set schedule for proposal hearing, the proponent and the Thesis Panel must be
present.

4. The Chairman of the Thesis Panel facilitates the proposal hearing session. The Thesis
Adviser is expected not to provide evaluative comments or defense to the proposal
during the hearing. A student-secretary will be designated to take note of all the
comments and recommendations made by the panel. The proposal hearing lasts for an
hour apportioned and ordered as follows:

Time Allocation Activity

(min)
Introduction of the proponents to the panel reviewers by
2
the Chairman of the Thesis Panel
Presentation of research objectives, conceptual
5 framework/research design by one of the proponents (use
of PowerPoint application is recommended).
Interactive discussion (Q & A) between the Thesis Panel
35 and the proponents regarding merits, deficiencies or
inadequacies of the proposal.
Panel deliberation on the merits of the proposal;
10 formulation of resolutions for improvement of the
proposal.
Presentation of the comments/recommendations by the
5
secretary
Presentation of the resolutions by the Chairman of the
8
Thesis Panel

Prepared by: CE Dep’t Status: Issue Date: 8/2021 Next review date: August 2022 Page
Approved by: CE Dep’t Version: Effective Date: 8/2021 Document owner: CE Dep’t 2
1.0
 CVE 199: UNDERGRADUATE THESIS COE-BSCEN
Proposal Guidelines

C. Guidelines for Rating and Approval

1. The reviewers (Thesis Committee members) should use the rubric for evaluating
three major aspects of the proposal document, i.e., Research Title, Problem and
Reviews; Research Design Methods; Research Project Planning; and Research
Documentation. For each specific dimension/criterion under a given aspect, a
possible rating may be any of the following:

Rating Qualitative Description

4.0 Needs Improvement
2.1-3.0 Partially Meets Expectations
1.4-2.0 Meets Expectations
1.0-1.5 Exceeds Expectations

2. A proposal is only considered approved if all specific dimensions get a rating of 2.0 or
better.

3. If a reviewer assigns a rating of 2.1 to 4.0, he/she must specify in clear terms
(using CVE 199 FORM-2a – Reviewer’s Comments) the improvements necessary
so that the rating can be raised to 2.0.

4. One copy of the revised proposal for each primary reviewer together with FORM-2a
– Reviewer’s Comments and FORM-2B – Response to Reviewer’s Comments must be
submitted to the Thesis Panel after the proposal hearing. The Thesis Adviser ensures that
all recommendations are sufficiently addressed.

5. The proponent routes the revised proposal to the thesis committee who shall validate that
the recommendations have been sufficiently addressed by assigning a rating of at least 2.0
to the previously deficient dimensions of the undergraduate research proposal.

6. Only approved research proposal will proceed to Research Implementation Phase.

Prepared by: CE Dep’t Status: Issue Date: 8/2021 Next review date: August 2022 Page
Approved by: CE Dep’t Version: Effective Date: 8/2021 Document owner: CE Dep’t 3
1.0