UTP/CGS/52C
Centre for Graduate Studies
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
RESEARCH PROPOSAL DEFENSE (EVALUATION FORM)
Candidates Name:
Research Title:
Student ID:
Level of Study:
Masters
PhD
Please choose the appropriate rubric for each category
Category
Criteria for
Judging
Quality
Problem Formulation (30)
Literature
review
(10)
Objective
(10)
Problem
Statement
(10)
Excellent
Above Average
Average
Below Average
Unsatisfactory
The student has carried
out a comprehensive
and up-to-date
literature review and
has done critical
analysis
(10)
The student has carried
out an in-depth and upto-date literature review
and has done
substantial analyses
(8)
The student has carried
out sufficient literature
review and adequate
analysis
(6)
The student has
carried out insufficient
literature review and
inadequate analysis
(4)
The student has not
carried out the
necessary literature
review and analyses
(2)
The student has
produced research
objectives that are
significant, measurable,
relevant and achievable
within the time frame
(10)
The student has
produced research
objectives that are
substantial,
measurable, relevant
and achievable within
the time frame
(8)
The student has
produced research
objectives that are
sufficient, measurable,
relevant and achievable
within the time frame
(6)
The student has
produced research
objectives that are
insufficient,
measurable, irrelevant
and unachievable
within the time frame
(4)
The student has
produced poor
research objectives
(2)
The student has
produced a clear and
conclusive problem
statement that is
rational and has high
impact on society
(10)
The student has
produced a clear and
justifiable problem
statement that is
rational and has a
substantial impact on
society
(8)
The student has
produced a sufficiently
relevant problem
statement that is
rational and has a
sufficient impact
towards society
(6)
The student has
produced an unclear
but relevant problem
statement that is
irrational and has
insufficient impact on
society
(4)
The student has
produced an unclear
problem statement that
is irrelevant and has no
impact on society
(2)
Marks
Remark
Page 1 of 3
Project
Activities
(10)
The student has
scheduled project
activities that are
comprehensive, highly
achievable with
extremely appropriate
methods
The student has
scheduled project
activities that are
comprehensive,
achievable with suitable
methods
The student has
scheduled project
activities that are
sufficient, moderately
achievable with
adequate methods
The student has
scheduled project
activities that are
insufficient,
unachievable with
inadequate methods
(8)
(6)
(4)
The student has
identified milestones
that are mostly
achievable and relevant
to the objectives.
The student has
identified milestones
that are sufficiently
achievable and
adequately relevant to
the objectives.
The student has
identified milestones
that are insufficiently
achievable and
inadequately relevant to
the objectives.
(6)
(4)
The student has
scheduled project
activities that are
inappropriate and
unachievable
(2)
Methodology (30)
(10)
Key
Milestone
(10)
The student has
identified milestones
that are highly
achievable, very
satisfactory and
extremely relevant to
the objectives.
(8)
(10)
Study Plan
(10)
The student has
exceptionally clear,
very feasible and
extremely structured
study plans
The student has
identified milestones
that are unachievable
and irrelevant to the
objectives or has
identified no
milestones.
(2)
The student has
substantially clear,
feasible and well
structured study plans
The student has
sufficiently clear,
feasible and adequately
structured study plans
(8)
(6)
(10)
The student has
insufficiently clear,
unfeasible and
inadequately structured
study plans
(4)
The student has
unclear,
unfeasible and
unstructured study
plans
Preliminary Analysis (20)
(2)
Proof of
Concept
(10)
The student has proof
of concept that is highly
established and
extremely viable
The student has proof
of concept that
substantially
established and viable
The student has proof
of concept that is
sufficient established
and adequately viable
(10)
(8)
(6)
The student has proof
of concept that is
insufficiently
established and
inadequately viable
The student has proof
of concept that is not
established and
unviable
(2)
(4)
Preliminary
Results
(10)
The student has
preliminary results that
are critically analyzed,
thoroughly discussed
and extremely relevant
to literature findings
and study objectives.
The student has
preliminary results that
are substantially
analyzed, well
discussed and relevant
to literature findings
and study objectives.
(10)
(8)
The student has
preliminary results that
are sufficiently
analyzed, adequately
discussed and
reasonably relevant to
literature findings and
study objectives.
The student has
preliminary results that
are insufficiently
analyzed, inadequately
discussed and
unreasonably relevant
to literature findings
and study objectives
(6)
(4)
The student has
preliminary results that
are unanalyzed, poorly
discussed and
irrelevant to literature
findings and study
objectives
(2)
Page 2 of 3
Oral Presentation (20)
The student has an
outstanding ability to
defend his/her work.
The student has a
substantial ability to
defend his/her work.
The student has a
sufficient ability to
defend his/her work.
The student has an
insufficient ability to
defend his/her work.
(10)
(8)
(6)
(4)
The student presents a
technical content that is
extremely credible.
The student presents a
technical content that is
mostly credible.
The student presents a
technical content that is
sufficiently credible.
The student presents a
technical content that is
insufficiently credible.
The student presents a
technical content that is
not credible.
(10)
(8)
(6)
(4)
(2)
Defense
Ability (10)
Technical
Content (10)
The student is unable
to defend his/her work.
(2)
TOTAL SCORE
Recommendation by Panel:
Outstanding The student has an excellent research proposal and may continue research without any concern
Meet Requirement The student has a good research proposal and may continue research with minor concern
Below Requirement The research proposal needs major modifications. The revised proposal must be resubmitted to the
panel within the time allocated
Fail The research proposal is rejected. The panel proposes termination of candidacy
Comments: _________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
UTP GRADING
SCHEME
Score Range
Grade
85 100
A
80 84.9
A75 79.9
B+
65 74.9
B
55
50
45
40
64.9
54.9
49.9
44.9
0 39.9
C+
C
D+
D
F
---------------------------Signature
Examiners Name: .
Date:
Page 3 of 3
