De La Salle University Dasmarias City

C olle ge of En ginee ri ng, Ar chi te ct ur e & Te ch nology

A R C H I T E C T U R E D E P A R T M E N T

:
:

THESIS PROPONENT
PROPOSED TOPIC/PROJECT

Ducay, Glenn Mark V.

Proposed Subic Bay Hotel and Resort
________________________________________________________________

P R O J E C T
CRITERIA

D E F E N S E

R U B R I C

SATISFACTORY

PASSING

DISAPPOINTING

Identifies main issues

vividly and smoothly
connects these to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

Identifies main issues but

the writing limitedly
connects these to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

Main
issues
were
confusing and these
hardly connect to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

(2 pts)
Project
goals
&
objectives are clear,
unique to the thesis
proposal, attainable and
timely.

(1 pt)
Listed
goals &
objectives are simply on
the acceptable levels but
the wordings used lack
originality.

( 0 pt )
Project
goals
&
objectives are confusing,
and cannot be accepted
as such.

(2 pts)
Clearly discusses the
relevance of the project
with
the
issues
presented. Stated as if
the proposal is really
going to be built.
(2 pts)
Scope and delimitations
of the study were within
acceptable parameters
and with full regard of
the thesis students
capabilities.
(2 pts)

(1 pt)
The
opportunity,
beneficiary
and
relevance were identified
but the writing needs a
little more editing.

( 0 pt )
There was hardly any
attempt to make the
thesis
relevant,
contributory, unique &
interesting.

(1 pt)
Scope and delimitations
of the study may not
have been exhaustive
but the outline can be
within
acceptable
parameters.
(1 pt)

( 0 pt )
Simple case of cut
paste resolution to the
requirement.

There was conceiveable

evidence
that
the
sources used were
analyzed thoroughly and
thoughtfully
abridged.
The thesis student has
made
precise
annotations that prove
what he has read has
influenced his ideas.
(2 pts)
The
conceptual
framework is perfectly
understandable
and
reflects the totality of the
thesis proposal in a very
organized & systematic
approach.
(2 pts)

There
was
token
analysis of the sources
and it seems this is done
merely to comply with
the requirements.

There was hardly any

connection between the
sources
and
the
proposed thesis.

(1 pt)
The
conceptual
framework is based
merely on fairly accepted
norms and is hardly
original.

( 0 pt )
Unable to identify an
appropriate model or
framework.

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )

PROBLEM & ITS SETTING

INTRODUCTION
(Rationale, Background, Problem
Statement)

PROJECT GOALS &

OBJECTIVES
(The End Vision of the Proponent, List
of Outputs)

SIGNIFICANCE &
EXPECTED OUTPUT
Specifically identifies the opportunity,
perceived contribution to its intended
primary users, the society, and
architecture.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

( 0 pt )

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

REVIEW OF RELATED
LITERATURE

CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
(System of Inquiry, Work Plan, Data
Gathering Procedure)

TENTATIVE SITE CRITERIA

The research inquiry

going to the solution
form one seamless,
unique and organized
process.

Methodology used is
predictable but is useful
nevertheless.

There is no intent to
make the methodology a
well thought process.

(2 pts)
The
site
criteria
presented
are
exhaustive and may be
used immediately for the
next defense.

(1 pt)
The
site
criteria
presented are exhaustive
but needs further editing
to be useful for the next
defense..

( 0 pt )
The site criteria are too
random to be useful
anyway.

(2 pts)

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )

Exhibits full authority in

the thesis proposal by
speaking cleverly
in
English;
answers
questions
confidently
and directly; never
intends to exceed the
time allotted.
(2 pts)
Slides are very readable;
there was rehearsal
before
the
actual
defense; all slides are
relevant to the topic;
never boring but not too
tiring; thoughts are never
lost because of the good
visual presentation.

There is token attempt to

answer
in
English;
answers haltingly but can
get to the point anyway;
uses up a lot of time
between responses but
answers are correct &
acceptable.
(1 pt)
Slides
are
fairly
readable; relevance to
the thesis established;
may be too numerous to
comprehend; took a lot
of time to finish.

Hardly convinces the

Panel of Jury with the
replies given. Hopes the
Panel of Jury will simply
accept everything.

(2 pts)

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )
PASSED
FAILED

PRESENTATION

ORAL COMMUNICATION
SKILL

VISUAL COMMUNICATION
SKILL

PA N E L I S T S

Panelist:

Architect Mark B. Garcia

Adviser:

Architect Jenny R. Feraer

Date:

August 20, 2014

D E C I S I O N

De La Salle University Dasmarias City

C olle ge of En ginee ri ng, Ar chi te ct ur e & Te ch nology
A R C H I T E C T U R E D E P A R T M E N T

( 0 pt )
Output
is
unremarkable
unprofessional.

sloppy,
and

:
:

THESIS PROPONENT
PROPOSED TOPIC/PROJECT

Ducay, Glenn Mark V.

Proposed Subic Bay Hotel and Resort
________________________________________________________________

P R O J E C T
CRITERIA

D E F E N S E

R U B R I C

SATISFACTORY

PASSING

DISAPPOINTING

Identifies main issues

vividly and smoothly
connects these to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

Identifies main issues but

the writing limitedly
connects these to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

Main
issues
were
confusing and these
hardly connect to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

(2 pts)
Project
goals
&
objectives are clear,
unique to the thesis
proposal, attainable and
timely.

(1 pt)
Listed
goals &
objectives are simply on
the acceptable levels but
the wordings used lack
originality.

( 0 pt )
Project
goals
&
objectives are confusing,
and cannot be accepted
as such.

(2 pts)
Clearly discusses the
relevance of the project
with
the
issues
presented. Stated as if
the proposal is really
going to be built.
(2 pts)
Scope and delimitations
of the study were within
acceptable parameters
and with full regard of
the thesis students
capabilities.
(2 pts)

(1 pt)
The
opportunity,
beneficiary
and
relevance were identified
but the writing needs a
little more editing.

( 0 pt )
There was hardly any
attempt to make the
thesis
relevant,
contributory, unique &
interesting.

(1 pt)
Scope and delimitations
of the study may not
have been exhaustive
but the outline can be
within
acceptable
parameters.
(1 pt)

( 0 pt )
Simple case of cut
paste resolution to the
requirement.

There was conceiveable

evidence
that
the
sources used were
analyzed thoroughly and
thoughtfully
abridged.
The thesis student has
made
precise
annotations that prove
what he has read has
influenced his ideas.
(2 pts)
The
conceptual
framework is perfectly
understandable
and
reflects the totality of the
thesis proposal in a very
organized & systematic
approach.
(2 pts)

There
was
token
analysis of the sources
and it seems this is done
merely to comply with
the requirements.

There was hardly any

connection between the
sources
and
the
proposed thesis.

(1 pt)
The
conceptual
framework is based
merely on fairly accepted
norms and is hardly
original.

( 0 pt )
Unable to identify an
appropriate model or
framework.

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )

PROBLEM & ITS SETTING

INTRODUCTION
(Rationale, Background, Problem
Statement)

PROJECT GOALS &

OBJECTIVES
(The End Vision of the Proponent, List
of Outputs)

SIGNIFICANCE &
EXPECTED OUTPUT
Specifically identifies the opportunity,
perceived contribution to its intended
primary users, the society, and
architecture.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

( 0 pt )

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

REVIEW OF RELATED
LITERATURE

CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
(System of Inquiry, Work Plan, Data
Gathering Procedure)

TENTATIVE SITE CRITERIA

The research inquiry

going to the solution
form one seamless,
unique and organized
process.

Methodology used is
predictable but is useful
nevertheless.

There is no intent to
make the methodology a
well thought process.

(2 pts)
The
site
criteria
presented
are
exhaustive and may be
used immediately for the
next defense.

(1 pt)
The
site
criteria
presented are exhaustive
but needs further editing
to be useful for the next
defense..

( 0 pt )
The site criteria are too
random to be useful
anyway.

(2 pts)

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )

Exhibits full authority in

the thesis proposal by
speaking cleverly
in
English;
answers
questions
confidently
and directly; never
intends to exceed the
time allotted.
(2 pts)
Slides are very readable;
there was rehearsal
before
the
actual
defense; all slides are
relevant to the topic;
never boring but not too
tiring; thoughts are never
lost because of the good
visual presentation.

There is token attempt to

answer
in
English;
answers haltingly but can
get to the point anyway;
uses up a lot of time
between responses but
answers are correct &
acceptable.
(1 pt)
Slides
are
fairly
readable; relevance to
the thesis established;
may be too numerous to
comprehend; took a lot
of time to finish.

Hardly convinces the

Panel of Jury with the
replies given. Hopes the
Panel of Jury will simply
accept everything.

(2 pts)

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )
PASSED
FAILED

PRESENTATION

ORAL COMMUNICATION
SKILL

VISUAL COMMUNICATION
SKILL

PA N E L I S T S

Panelist:

Architect Edmon L. Samson

Adviser:

Architect Jenny R. Feraer

Date:

August 20, 2014

D E C I S I O N

De La Salle University Dasmarias City

C olle ge of En ginee ri ng, Ar chi te ct ur e & Te ch nology
A R C H I T E C T U R E D E P A R T M E N T

( 0 pt )
Output
is
unremarkable
unprofessional.

sloppy,
and

:
:

THESIS PROPONENT
PROPOSED TOPIC/PROJECT

Ducay, Glenn Mark V.

Proposed Subic Bay Hotel and Resort
________________________________________________________________

P R O J E C T
CRITERIA

D E F E N S E

R U B R I C

SATISFACTORY

PASSING

DISAPPOINTING

Identifies main issues

vividly and smoothly
connects these to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

Identifies main issues but

the writing limitedly
connects these to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

Main
issues
were
confusing and these
hardly connect to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

(2 pts)
Project
goals
&
objectives are clear,
unique to the thesis
proposal, attainable and
timely.

(1 pt)
Listed
goals &
objectives are simply on
the acceptable levels but
the wordings used lack
originality.

( 0 pt )
Project
goals
&
objectives are confusing,
and cannot be accepted
as such.

(2 pts)
Clearly discusses the
relevance of the project
with
the
issues
presented. Stated as if
the proposal is really
going to be built.
(2 pts)
Scope and delimitations
of the study were within
acceptable parameters
and with full regard of
the thesis students
capabilities.
(2 pts)

(1 pt)
The
opportunity,
beneficiary
and
relevance were identified
but the writing needs a
little more editing.

( 0 pt )
There was hardly any
attempt to make the
thesis
relevant,
contributory, unique &
interesting.

(1 pt)
Scope and delimitations
of the study may not
have been exhaustive
but the outline can be
within
acceptable
parameters.
(1 pt)

( 0 pt )
Simple case of cut
paste resolution to the
requirement.

There was conceiveable

evidence
that
the
sources used were
analyzed thoroughly and
thoughtfully
abridged.
The thesis student has
made
precise
annotations that prove
what he has read has
influenced his ideas.
(2 pts)
The
conceptual
framework is perfectly
understandable
and
reflects the totality of the
thesis proposal in a very
organized & systematic
approach.
(2 pts)

There
was
token
analysis of the sources
and it seems this is done
merely to comply with
the requirements.

There was hardly any

connection between the
sources
and
the
proposed thesis.

(1 pt)
The
conceptual
framework is based
merely on fairly accepted
norms and is hardly
original.

( 0 pt )
Unable to identify an
appropriate model or
framework.

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )

PROBLEM & ITS SETTING

INTRODUCTION
(Rationale, Background, Problem
Statement)

PROJECT GOALS &

OBJECTIVES
(The End Vision of the Proponent, List
of Outputs)

SIGNIFICANCE &
EXPECTED OUTPUT
Specifically identifies the opportunity,
perceived contribution to its intended
primary users, the society, and
architecture.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

( 0 pt )

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

REVIEW OF RELATED
LITERATURE

CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
(System of Inquiry, Work Plan, Data
Gathering Procedure)

TENTATIVE SITE CRITERIA

The research inquiry

going to the solution
form one seamless,
unique and organized
process.

Methodology used is
predictable but is useful
nevertheless.

There is no intent to
make the methodology a
well thought process.

(2 pts)
The
site
criteria
presented
are
exhaustive and may be
used immediately for the
next defense.

(1 pt)
The
site
criteria
presented are exhaustive
but needs further editing
to be useful for the next
defense..

( 0 pt )
The site criteria are too
random to be useful
anyway.

(2 pts)

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )

Exhibits full authority in

the thesis proposal by
speaking cleverly
in
English;
answers
questions
confidently
and directly; never
intends to exceed the
time allotted.
(2 pts)
Slides are very readable;
there was rehearsal
before
the
actual
defense; all slides are
relevant to the topic;
never boring but not too
tiring; thoughts are never
lost because of the good
visual presentation.

There is token attempt to

answer
in
English;
answers haltingly but can
get to the point anyway;
uses up a lot of time
between responses but
answers are correct &
acceptable.
(1 pt)
Slides
are
fairly
readable; relevance to
the thesis established;
may be too numerous to
comprehend; took a lot
of time to finish.

Hardly convinces the

Panel of Jury with the
replies given. Hopes the
Panel of Jury will simply
accept everything.

(2 pts)

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )
PASSED
FAILED

PRESENTATION

ORAL COMMUNICATION
SKILL

VISUAL COMMUNICATION
SKILL

PA N E L I S T S

Panelist:

Architect Ralph Christian T. Drice

Adviser:

Architect Jenny R. Feraer

Date:

August 20, 2014

D E C I S I O N

De La Salle University Dasmarias City

C olle ge of En ginee ri ng, Ar chi te ct ur e & Te ch nology
A R C H I T E C T U R E D E P A R T M E N T

( 0 pt )
Output
is
unremarkable
unprofessional.

sloppy,
and

:
:

THESIS PROPONENT
PROPOSED TOPIC/PROJECT

Ducay, Glenn Mark V.

Proposed Subic Bay Hotel and Resort
________________________________________________________________

P R O J E C T
CRITERIA

D E F E N S E

R U B R I C

SATISFACTORY

PASSING

DISAPPOINTING

Identifies main issues

vividly and smoothly
connects these to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

Identifies main issues but

the writing limitedly
connects these to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

Main
issues
were
confusing and these
hardly connect to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

(2 pts)
Project
goals
&
objectives are clear,
unique to the thesis
proposal, attainable and
timely.

(1 pt)
Listed
goals &
objectives are simply on
the acceptable levels but
the wordings used lack
originality.

( 0 pt )
Project
goals
&
objectives are confusing,
and cannot be accepted
as such.

(2 pts)
Clearly discusses the
relevance of the project
with
the
issues
presented. Stated as if
the proposal is really
going to be built.
(2 pts)
Scope and delimitations
of the study were within
acceptable parameters
and with full regard of
the thesis students
capabilities.
(2 pts)

(1 pt)
The
opportunity,
beneficiary
and
relevance were identified
but the writing needs a
little more editing.

( 0 pt )
There was hardly any
attempt to make the
thesis
relevant,
contributory, unique &
interesting.

(1 pt)
Scope and delimitations
of the study may not
have been exhaustive
but the outline can be
within
acceptable
parameters.
(1 pt)

( 0 pt )
Simple case of cut
paste resolution to the
requirement.

There was conceiveable

evidence
that
the
sources used were
analyzed thoroughly and
thoughtfully
abridged.
The thesis student has
made
precise
annotations that prove
what he has read has
influenced his ideas.
(2 pts)
The
conceptual
framework is perfectly
understandable
and
reflects the totality of the
thesis proposal in a very
organized & systematic
approach.
(2 pts)

There
was
token
analysis of the sources
and it seems this is done
merely to comply with
the requirements.

There was hardly any

connection between the
sources
and
the
proposed thesis.

(1 pt)
The
conceptual
framework is based
merely on fairly accepted
norms and is hardly
original.

( 0 pt )
Unable to identify an
appropriate model or
framework.

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )

PROBLEM & ITS SETTING

INTRODUCTION
(Rationale, Background, Problem
Statement)

PROJECT GOALS &

OBJECTIVES
(The End Vision of the Proponent, List
of Outputs)

SIGNIFICANCE &
EXPECTED OUTPUT
Specifically identifies the opportunity,
perceived contribution to its intended
primary users, the society, and
architecture.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

( 0 pt )

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

REVIEW OF RELATED
LITERATURE

CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
(System of Inquiry, Work Plan, Data
Gathering Procedure)

TENTATIVE SITE CRITERIA

The research inquiry

going to the solution
form one seamless,
unique and organized
process.

Methodology used is
predictable but is useful
nevertheless.

There is no intent to
make the methodology a
well thought process.

(2 pts)
The
site
criteria
presented
are
exhaustive and may be
used immediately for the
next defense.

(1 pt)
The
site
criteria
presented are exhaustive
but needs further editing
to be useful for the next
defense..

( 0 pt )
The site criteria are too
random to be useful
anyway.

(2 pts)

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )

Exhibits full authority in

the thesis proposal by
speaking cleverly
in
English;
answers
questions
confidently
and directly; never
intends to exceed the
time allotted.
(2 pts)
Slides are very readable;
there was rehearsal
before
the
actual
defense; all slides are
relevant to the topic;
never boring but not too
tiring; thoughts are never
lost because of the good
visual presentation.

There is token attempt to

answer
in
English;
answers haltingly but can
get to the point anyway;
uses up a lot of time
between responses but
answers are correct &
acceptable.
(1 pt)
Slides
are
fairly
readable; relevance to
the thesis established;
may be too numerous to
comprehend; took a lot
of time to finish.

Hardly convinces the

Panel of Jury with the
replies given. Hopes the
Panel of Jury will simply
accept everything.

(2 pts)

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )
PASSED
FAILED

PRESENTATION

ORAL COMMUNICATION
SKILL

VISUAL COMMUNICATION
SKILL

PA N E L I S T S

Panelist:

Architect

Adviser:

Architect Jenny R. Feraer

Date:

August 20, 2014

D E C I S I O N

De La Salle University Dasmarias City

C olle ge of En ginee ri ng, Ar chi te ct ur e & Te ch nology
A R C H I T E C T U R E D E P A R T M E N T

( 0 pt )
Output
is
unremarkable
unprofessional.

sloppy,
and

:
:

THESIS PROPONENT
PROPOSED TOPIC/PROJECT

Ducay, Glenn Mark V.

Proposed Subic Bay Hotel and Resort
________________________________________________________________

P R O J E C T
CRITERIA

D E F E N S E

R U B R I C

SATISFACTORY

PASSING

DISAPPOINTING

Identifies main issues

vividly and smoothly
connects these to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

Identifies main issues but

the writing limitedly
connects these to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

Main
issues
were
confusing and these
hardly connect to the
architectural
solution
proposed.

(2 pts)
Project
goals
&
objectives are clear,
unique to the thesis
proposal, attainable and
timely.

(1 pt)
Listed
goals &
objectives are simply on
the acceptable levels but
the wordings used lack
originality.

( 0 pt )
Project
goals
&
objectives are confusing,
and cannot be accepted
as such.

(2 pts)
Clearly discusses the
relevance of the project
with
the
issues
presented. Stated as if
the proposal is really
going to be built.
(2 pts)
Scope and delimitations
of the study were within
acceptable parameters
and with full regard of
the thesis students
capabilities.
(2 pts)

(1 pt)
The
opportunity,
beneficiary
and
relevance were identified
but the writing needs a
little more editing.

( 0 pt )
There was hardly any
attempt to make the
thesis
relevant,
contributory, unique &
interesting.

(1 pt)
Scope and delimitations
of the study may not
have been exhaustive
but the outline can be
within
acceptable
parameters.
(1 pt)

( 0 pt )
Simple case of cut
paste resolution to the
requirement.

There was conceiveable

evidence
that
the
sources used were
analyzed thoroughly and
thoughtfully
abridged.
The thesis student has
made
precise
annotations that prove
what he has read has
influenced his ideas.
(2 pts)
The
conceptual
framework is perfectly
understandable
and
reflects the totality of the
thesis proposal in a very
organized & systematic
approach.
(2 pts)

There
was
token
analysis of the sources
and it seems this is done
merely to comply with
the requirements.

There was hardly any

connection between the
sources
and
the
proposed thesis.

(1 pt)
The
conceptual
framework is based
merely on fairly accepted
norms and is hardly
original.

( 0 pt )
Unable to identify an
appropriate model or
framework.

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )

PROBLEM & ITS SETTING

INTRODUCTION
(Rationale, Background, Problem
Statement)

PROJECT GOALS &

OBJECTIVES
(The End Vision of the Proponent, List
of Outputs)

SIGNIFICANCE &
EXPECTED OUTPUT
Specifically identifies the opportunity,
perceived contribution to its intended
primary users, the society, and
architecture.

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

( 0 pt )

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

REVIEW OF RELATED
LITERATURE

CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
(System of Inquiry, Work Plan, Data
Gathering Procedure)

TENTATIVE SITE CRITERIA

The research inquiry

going to the solution
form one seamless,
unique and organized
process.

Methodology used is
predictable but is useful
nevertheless.

There is no intent to
make the methodology a
well thought process.

(2 pts)
The
site
criteria
presented
are
exhaustive and may be
used immediately for the
next defense.

(1 pt)
The
site
criteria
presented are exhaustive
but needs further editing
to be useful for the next
defense..

( 0 pt )
The site criteria are too
random to be useful
anyway.

(2 pts)

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )

Exhibits full authority in

the thesis proposal by
speaking cleverly
in
English;
answers
questions
confidently
and directly; never
intends to exceed the
time allotted.
(2 pts)
Slides are very readable;
there was rehearsal
before
the
actual
defense; all slides are
relevant to the topic;
never boring but not too
tiring; thoughts are never
lost because of the good
visual presentation.

There is token attempt to

answer
in
English;
answers haltingly but can
get to the point anyway;
uses up a lot of time
between responses but
answers are correct &
acceptable.
(1 pt)
Slides
are
fairly
readable; relevance to
the thesis established;
may be too numerous to
comprehend; took a lot
of time to finish.

Hardly convinces the

Panel of Jury with the
replies given. Hopes the
Panel of Jury will simply
accept everything.

(2 pts)

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )
PASSED
FAILED

PRESENTATION

ORAL COMMUNICATION
SKILL

VISUAL COMMUNICATION
SKILL

PA N E L I S T S

Panelist:

Architect

Adviser:

Architect Jenny R. Feraer

Date:

August 20, 2014

D E C I S I O N

( 0 pt )
Output
is
unremarkable
unprofessional.

sloppy,
and