FAKULTI KEJURUTERAAN ELEKTRIK
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
ME 2-1
MASTER BY RESEARCH PROPOSAL DEFENSE ASSESSMENT
CANDIDATE PARTICULARS
Name:
Research Topic:
Program:
IC/Passport No:
Research
Methodology
Course:
Enrollment:
Supervisor(s): 1.
2.
 Completed
 Currently Enrolled
 Not Taken
 Full-time
 Part-time
INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATE AND EXAMINERS
1. Candidate must fill all particulars prior to assessment.
2.  Check the appropriate fields for marks.
3. Candidate must achieve at least 50% for conditional pass.
4. Subject to the examiners recommendation, a candidate can be promoted to Ph.D. level programme if the
candidate achieves at least 80%.
CHAIRPERSON & EXAMINERS VERIFICATION
Chairperson:
Sign:
Assessor 1:
Sign:
Assessor 2:
Sign:
Date:
Venue:
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Result




(M ≥70%) The research proposal is accepted without amendments
(50%≤ M <70%) The research proposal is accepted with amendment
The student needs to resubmit amended proposal within 2 weeks from the date of official assessment

result is issued.
The student needs to amend the proposal based on the assessors’ comments but is not required to

resubmit the proposal.
(M < 50%) The research proposal is not accepted and the student needs to re-sit the assessment in
the next semester. (please state the reasons for rejection)
(M < 30%) The research proposal is not accepted and the student fails the assessment and is
recommended to be terminated. (please state the reasons for rejection)
Recommended for PhD programme (M ≥ 80%)  Yes  No
Reasons for the rejection of the research proposal (use additional pages if necessary)
List of Publications – main student author only (to be filled by candidate)
Page 1 of 3 : ME2-1
PROPOSAL ASSESSMENT DETAILS
Literature Review (PO5) – 10 Marks x 2 = 20 Marks

Comprehensive literature review and excellent critical analysis of related works

Significant literature review with good critical analysis of related works.

Satisfactory literature review with insufficient critical analysis of related works.

Insufficient and/or unrelated literature review.




x2=
Problem Statement (PO2) – 10 Marks x 1.5 = 15 Marks

Problem statement is properly described with sufficient contextual details.

Problem statement is clearly stated. However, contextual details are
insufficiently stated.
Problem statement is not properly stated. Contains insufficient contextual
details.
Problem statement is vague and/or wrongly defined.




x 1.5 =


Objectives and Scope (PO1) – 10 Marks x 1.5 = 15 Marks

The objectives are clear and quantifiable. The scope of work is explicitly
described.
The objectives are clear but not quantifiable. The scope of work is defined.

The objectives or scope are not precise.

The objectives and scope are unclear and/or wrongly defined.


The steps to accomplish the expected deliverables are properly defined and
planned. Design of experimentation and measurable parameters are clearly
defined.
The research methodology is clear but with unrealistic approaches. Some
deliverables may not be measured.
The research methodology is not clear.

The research methodology is wrongly defined and planned.

Results show sufficient amount of preliminary result/progress. In line with
research timeline.
Results show some preliminary result/progress but insufficient to make a
conclusion.
Insufficient or unrelated preliminary results presented or the student did not put
enough effort to solve the problem as planned.





x 1.5 =
Research Methodology (PO2) – 10 Marks x 1.5 = 15 Marks


x 1.5 =



Preliminary Results (PO3) – 10 Marks



  

Significance and Contribution to Knowledge (PO6) – 10 Marks

The originality of work is clear and/or significant to address contemporary
problems.
Similar work exists but differences have been described clearly.

Existing similar works have been attempted before.

Identical works have been attempted before or the work is a textbook problem.



 

References (PO4) – 5 Marks

Relevant, recent, comprehensive referencing.

Insufficient referencing.


Communication skills (PO3) – 10 Marks

Explanation/justification is clear and highly convincing. Able to answer questions well.

Explanation/justification is understandable. Questions are answered fairly well.

Presentation is difficult to comprehend. Questions are not answered properly or are
often misunderstood.



TOTAL MARKS
100
Page 2 of 3 : ME2-1
Examiners’ comments/suggestions (use the other side of this page if required):
Name and chairperson’s signature:
Date:
Page 3 of 3 : ME2-1