INTRODUCTION
Context (10pts.)
Gaps (10pts)
STATEMENT OF
THE PROBLEM
(10pts.)
REVIEW OF
LITERATURE
Synthesis (10pts.)
Conclusion (10pts.)
METHODOLOGY
Instruments and
Participants (10pts)
Design and
Methods (10pts)
APPENDICES
(10pts)
CITATIONS AND
REFERENCING
(10pts)
ORGANIZATION
AND
LANGUAGE (10pts)
*Grammarly Score
FORMAT (10pts)
SIMILARITY INDEX
(10pts)
TOTAL
Exemplary
Good
Acceptable
10
8
6
Has excellently placed the
research problem in a bigger
setting by placing it with
relevant issues and trends.
Has identified the gap in
previous studies by effectively
mentioning what has been
done and what has not been
done.
The problem is clearly defined
and the objectives are specific,
measurable, and well-written.
Contains an extensive and
balanced review of existing
literature that includes (1)
comparison/contrasts of
different points of view of
different research outcomes;
and (2) the relationship of the
study to the previous empirical
research.
Has placed the research
problem in a bigger setting by
placing it with relevant issues
and trends
Has identified the gap in the
previous studies, but could still
be improved.
The problem is clearly defined
and the objectives are specific
and measurable.
Contains an extensive review of
existing literature but maybe
biased on some sections. The
review includes (1)
comparison/contrasts of
different points of view of
different research outcomes;
and (2) the relationship of the
study to the previous empirical
research.
Has somehow placed the
research problem in a bigger
setting by identifying an aspect
of the issue/trend
Needs
Improvement
4
The research problem is not
placed in a bigger setting as
issue and trends were not
mentioned
The problem is not clearly
defined and the objectives are
not so specific and measurable.
The problem is not clearly
defined and the objectives are
not specific and measurable.
The objectives of the study are
stated broadly.
Some variables are not
expressed in measurable terms
but relationship investigated is
expressed.
The objectives of the study are
unclear.
Variables are not expressed in
measurable terms and
relationship investigated is not
expressed.
Review is not extensive and
acceptable, with mostly biased
sections.
Contains an acceptable review
of existing literature. Some
sections are included but not in
depth.
Major sections have been
omitted and mostly run-on.
Ideas are highly redundant.
The author was able to make
satisfactory conclusions. Few
insights are lacking or
unnecessary. Conclusions are
made and generally supported
by the review.
The author provides concluding
remarks. Some of the
conclusions, however, were not
supported in the body of the
report. The research question is
not that established.
There is no indication the
author tried to draw
conclusions out of the related
literature. No research
question is provided or the
research question is unfocused.
Measurements
are
identified, procedures and
processes are described,
variables and data needed
are described
Measurements are somewhat
identified, procedures,
processes, variables and data
needed are described but is
found lacking
Explanations on how data will
be managed and processed are
explained in excellent details.
Design and methods are clearly
described.
Explanations on how data will
be managed and processed.
Design and methods are
described.
Some details of explanations on
how data will be managed and
processed are given. Design
and methods are poorly
described.
Little to no explanations on
how data will be managed and
processed are given. Design and
methods are not appropriate or
non-existent.
Questionnaires, letters, and
other pertinent documents are
provided.
One element is missing.
Two elements are missing.
All elements are missing.
Relevant prior work of high
quality is extensively referred.
Relevant prior work of high
quality is referred.
Relevant of prior work of
moderate quality is referred.
Bulk of literature are composed
of websites, and grey
literatures.
Proper
and
consistent
formatting of citations and
literature cited.
Proper formatting for citations
and literature cited but is
seldom inconsistent.
Format for citations and
literature cited are highly
inconsistent.
Work was exceptionally logical
and organized. Uses concise
and clear language.
Work had clear body and idea.
Organization and logical flow of
ideas can be observed, uses
concise and clear language
Organization and flow of ideas
is somewhat evident, language
used is somewhat concise but
unclear.
Work was poorly organized and
ideas are presented randomly.
Flow of ideas are confusing,
language used are
inappropriate.
All
required
format,
structure, sections, layout,
and style are present and
correct.
Few minor deviances from the
prescribed format, structure,
sections, layout, and style.
Several errors on format,
structure, sections, layout, and
style is obvious.
Major and multiple errors on
format, structure, sections,
layout, and style, impedes
understanding of proposal.
10% or less
11-15%
16-20%
21% and higher
The author was able to make
succinct and precise
conclusions. Insights into the
problem are appropriate.
Conclusions and the research
question are strongly supported
in the review.
Measurements are clearly
identified, procedures and
processes are properly
explained and described,
variables and data needed can
clearly be seen from logical
descriptions
120 POINTS
Measurements are not
identified, procedures and
processes, variables and data
needed are not logically
described and is found lacking
Citations and literature cited is
not followed.