METHODS OF FINANCIAL RESEARCH THESIS PROPOSAL AND DEFENSE APPROVAL FORM Group Name: Group Members: _______________________________________________________ __________________________

_________________________ __________________________ _________________________

This is to certify that the following thesis topic/proposal has been approved for defense: Thesis Topic/Statement: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ It is understood by the group that the approval of the thesis topic does not mean automatic approval of the proposal. Name of panelists: ___________________________ Date of defense: Venue: Noted: Dr. Junette A. Perez Finrese Coordinator ___________________________ ___________________________ ________________________

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY Financial Management Department Methods of Financial Research General Grading Rubric Level of Achievement Criteria (20%) Identification and Summary of the Problem/Question for Investigation Substantially Developed The paper uses prior knowledge to identify a question to be studied. It has a clearly stated hypothesis. Furthermore, the (95-100) paper breaks questions down into a series of steps that will lead to the questions to be addressed in the study. It identifies complexities and nuances in the research question being asked. Moderately Developed The paper uses prior knowledge to identify a question to be studied. It has a clearly stated hypothesis. Furthermore, the (89-94) paper breaks questions down into smaller steps but has not identified all the complexities and nuances inherent in the research question. The paper has identified an appropriate topic to be studied, Minimally Developed but lacks a clearly stated hypothesis. It was organized as a (80-88) catalogue of information about the topic rather than pointing toward a hypothesis. The question that has been identified is too broad or vague Inadequate to provide a clear and coherent hypothesis. (70-79) No research question has been identified. Unacceptable (Below 70) (20%) Identification of Existing, Relevant Knowledge and Views Substantially Developed The paper provided a thorough and relevant review of literature. It has an excellent variety of sources. There are (95-100) clear linkages among the information and to the question under consideration. Moderately Developed The paper used appropriate sources to discover what is already known about the research question, but does not (89-94) make clear connections between this information and the question to be investigated. It has an adequate variety of sources. The paper used appropriate sources to discover what is Minimally Developed already known about the research question, but discussion (80-88) omits important aspects of the research problem. The papers review of the relevant knowledge is seriously Inadequate incomplete. It has inadequate variety of sources. The topics (70-79) major issues are ignored. There are many factual errors or inconsistencies in the paper. The paper has no review of related literature. Unacceptable (Below 70) (10%) Analysis/Synthesis Substantially Developed The paper has an excellent discussion of detail. There is

(95-100) Moderately Developed (89-94) Minimally Developed (80-88)

Inadequate (70-79) Unacceptable (Below 70) (20%) Soundness of Inferences from Previous Research Substantially Developed The paper draws sound and appropriate conclusions from previous research and communicates a logical path from the (95-100) data to the hypothesis. Moderately Developed The paper draws clear and enough conclusions from previous research and communicates a logical path from the (89-94) data to the hypothesis. The paper draws reasonable conclusions from previous Minimally Developed research, but does not convincingly connect the hypothesis (80-88) to the previous researches. The paper draws inferences that are not justified. Inadequate (70-79) No substantial inferences. Unacceptable (Below 70) (20%) Appropriateness of Proposed Data Collection Substantially Developed Data collection is planned carefully with appropriate precision and adequate statistical power. It identifies (95-100) relevant constraints. Furthermore, it considers possible criticisms of the methodology and addresses them correctly. Flaws are not readily apparent. Moderately Developed Data collection is planned carefully with appropriate precision and adequate statistical power. It identifies (89-94) relevant constraints. Any flaws are relatively minor/excusable due to practical constraints. However, consideration of the consequences and limits of the method to be employed are incomplete. The study is designed with appropriate methodology, but the Minimally Developed design contains some obvious and remedial flaws. (80-88) The research plan provided will not answer the research Inadequate question, does not control for relevant variables, and/or uses (70-79) other inappropriate methodology. No research plan was presented. Unacceptable (Below 70) (10%) Oral Presentation Substantially Developed Interesting and engaging introduction. Prepared the panel well. Well-organized and easy to follow. Audience (95-100)

impressive depth of insight/analysis. The paper has adequate discussion of detail. There is adequate depth of insight/analysis. The paper has vague discussion of detail. There is little insight/analysis. What has been provided is conventional of underdeveloped. The paper has vague discussion of detail. There is lack of insight/analysis. The paper has no analytical value and detail.

Moderately Developed (89-94)

Minimally Developed (80-88) Inadequate (70-79) Unacceptable (Below 70)

understands the argument and can formulate questions. Smooth, clear, and articulate, well prepared. Everyone can hear. Good eye contact. Answers question well and with reference to own; shows knowledge of subject. A general audience could understand the presentation. Great introduction. Captures the audience and points are clear. Everyone can hear. There is enough eye contact. There is knowledge of the subject. A general audience could understand the presentation. Good introduction. Captures audience, but interest is lost once in a while. Presentation was read from once in a while. Only part of the audience could understand the presentation. No introduction to the topic. Read from notes with no eye contact. Speech is too slow or too fast. Appears unprepared. Disorganized or poorly organized. No presentation materials.

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY Financial Management Department Methods of Financial Research General Grading Sheet 2nd Term, SY 2013-2014 Thesis Proposal Title: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENTS Criterion Substantially Developed (95-100) Moderately Developed (89-99) Minimally Developed (80-88) Inadequate (70-79)
Unacceptable (below 70)

Points Achieved

Problem/ Question (20%) Relevant Knowledge and Views (20%) Analysis/ Synthesis (10%) Soundness of Inferences (20%) Data Collection (20%) Oral Presentation (10%)

Weighted Sum of Scores: Graded By: Date of Defense: Conversion Scale: 100 95 99 90 94 85 89 _______________________
Signature above Printed Name

_______________________ 80 84 75 79 70 74 Below 70

4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5

2.0 1.5 1.0 0.0