UNIVERSIDAD DE MANILA

One Mehan Gardens Arroceros St., Manila

College of Engineering and Technology

Final Defense Score Sheet

Proponent(s): ___ Sem. A.Y. 20__- 20__

A. ____________________________________________ Degree:
B. ____________________________________________ ____________________________________
C. ____________________________________________ College:
D. ____________________________________________ ____________________________________
E. ____________________________________________ Name of Adviser:
____________________________________
Proposed Title:

Quality of Manuscript – 30%

Particulars Points Rating

Initial Pages
• Table of contents is consistent
• Acknowledgement is brief and formal 2
• Abstract is brief but complete
Chapter I
• Introduction is intact and provides clear overview of the entire
Thesis / Capstone Project
3
• Statement of the Problem/ Objects is SMART
• Scope and Limitation of the Research / Capstone Project are
clearly defined
Chapter II
• Related literatures are recent and relevant
• Anchor provides solid background of the Research / Capstone
Project 5
• Auxiliary theories are evident
• Sources are appropriately cited and noted
• Related studies are relevant and includes global and local scope
Chapter III
• There should be comprehensive discussions on the technologies
(hardware/software) involved in the Research / Capstone Project 3
and its related Research / Capstone Projects in the past

Chapter IV
• Methodology strictly follows the SDLC (esp. for Software
Development)
• Methodology includes project management techniques
appropriate for the chosen Research / Capstone Project.
10
• Requirements Specification is more or less complete and answers
the objectives
• Design Tools used are relevant and appropriate which should be
based on requirements
 • Development Plan is concrete and should be consistent with the
Design
• Testing techniques to be used should assess all aspects of the
developed Research/ Capstone Project
• Implementation Plan should be aligned with the objectives
Final Pages
• Findings and Conclusions are attuned with the objectives
• Recommendations are feasible and practical
5
• Terms in the glossary are defined operationally
• References should be in APA Format
• Appendices are relevant and help support the principal content
Manuscript Mechanics
• Organization and Fluidity of ideas are apparent
2
• Formatting and layout are consistent
• All parts of the manuscript should be grammatically correct

Quality of the Developed System – 30%

Particulars Percentage Rating

All major modules and features of the system’s output should be in
conformance with the submitted manuscript. The credit shall be based on the 10%
percentage of delivered items.
The developed system adheres with its desired performance in terms of
15%
functionality, content, accuracy and over-all acceptability.
Group debugging – the development team displayed competence in resolving
5%
placed bugs in the system.

TOTAL 30%

Oral Examination (Individual Grade) – 40%

Particulars Percentage A B C D E

Comprehensiveness of the Answer/Ideas

8%
Delivery/Command of the English Language, able to
8%
communicate his/her ideas effectively.
Contribution/Support to the Team
8%
The visual presentation exemplified ideas, concisely and
8%
comprehensively
Presenter is well prepared, appeared relaxed and
confident. He/ She exemplified mastery and reasoning 8%
ability in defending his/her proposal/section.
TOTAL 40%

EVALUATOR: _________________________________________________ DATE_______________

Signature over Printed Name
 UNIVERSIDAD DE MANILA
One Mehan Gardens Arroceros St., Manila

College of Engineering and Technology

Final Defense Final Grade Summary

Proponent(s): ___ Sem. A.Y. 20__- 20__
A. ____________________________________________ Degree:
B. ____________________________________________ ____________________________________
C. ____________________________________________ College:
D. ____________________________________________ ____________________________________
E. ____________________________________________ Name of Adviser:
____________________________________
Title of Research/Project Proposal:

FINAL GRADE SUMMARY:

Particulars Percentage Rating

Quality of Manuscript and Developed

60%
System

Oral Examination Group Grade

40%
(Average of Individual Grade)

TOTAL 100%

FINAL RECOMMENDATION:

APPROVED – Minor revisions are necessary but they do not have to be presented in front of all
panelists. Further checking will be in the discretion of panel members’ availability (70-100%. – based
on the total score of the quality of documentation, developed system and oral examination.)

APPROVED WITH REVISIONS – Major revisions will be incorporated in the final copy of the final
manuscript as well as in the developed system. Students must re-present their system in front of all
panelists (50-69%- based on the total score of the quality of documentation and developed system.)

DISAPPROVED – The students failed to present a researchable or scholarly research/capstone

project. (49%and below – based on the total score of the quality of documentation and developed
system.)

EVALUATOR :_________________________________________________ DATE_______________

Signature over Printed Name
 UNIVERSIDAD DE MANILA
One Mehan Gardens Arroceros St., Manila

College of Engineering and Technology

Final Defense Evaluation Sheet

Proponent(s): ___ Sem. A.Y. 20__- 20__

A. ____________________________________________ Degree:
B. ____________________________________________ ____________________________________
C. ____________________________________________ College:
D. ____________________________________________ ____________________________________
E. ____________________________________________ Name of Adviser:
____________________________________
Title of Research/Project Proposal:

Comments, Evaluation and Recommendations:

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

EVALUATOR:_________________________________________________ DATE_______________
Signature over Printed Name