DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY DASMARIAS

College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 9 (ARCH511/L) ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (Topic/Title Defense)
THESIS PROPONENT
PROPOSED TOPIC/TITLE

:
:

________________________________________________________________ Adviser:________________________
approved

1. ______________________________________________________________

CRITERIA

W
T

A
EXCEEDS
EXPECTATION

B
SATISFACTORY

The accomplishment is
exemplary approaching to
perfection

Work is above of
acceptable criterion with
only few minor comments
and citation.

Work is in range of
acceptable criterion
with more than half of
the requirements are
satisfied.

Basic knowledge and

understanding yet
translation and
application did not met
expectation.

Work is below the

acceptable
criterion.

Clearly identifies and

summarizes main issues
and successfully explains
why/how problems or
questions are realized; and
identifies embedded or
implicit issues, addressing
their relationships to each
other.

Successfully identifies
and summarizes the main
issues, and to some extent
only few were not clearly
explain why/how
problems are realized.

Identifies main issues

but fails to summarize
or explain them clearly
or sufficiently.

Unable to clearly
identify, connect or
support the issue to the
propose topic based on
an information
presented.

Fails to identify,
summarize, or
explain the main
problem or
question.
Represents the
issues inaccurately
or inappropriately.

(20-19 pts)

(1815 pts)

(14-12 pts)

(6 pts)

( 0 pt )

Project Goal and

Objectives are clearly
identified. Most of the
ideas listed are cohesive
to design process and can
be translated to
architectural design
solution.

Some of the ideas are

vague. Half of the ideas
are cohesive to design
process and can be
translated to
architectural design
solution.

(14 10 pts)

(9 8 pts)

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

PROBLEM & ITS

SETTING
INTRODUCTION
(Rationale, Background,
Problem Statement)

PROJECT GOALS &

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

50
20

15

Project Goal and

Objectives are clearly
identified. All statement
are cohesive to design
process and can be
translated to architectural
design solution.

(15 pts)
SIGNIFICANCE &
EXPECTED OUTPUT
Specifically identifies the
opportunity, perceived contribution
to its intended primary users, the
society, and architecture

Clearly discuss how

important the topic /
project. Answers given in
clear and logical sequence

(5 pts)

Reasonably argue the

importance of topic /
project. Most answers
given are in clear and
logical sequence

(4pts)

C
MET CRITERIA

Reasonably argue the

importance of topic /
project. Less than half
of argument given are
vague and irrelevant.

(3 pts)

disapproved

LESS
SATISFACTORY

More than half of the

ideas are vague. Not
more than half are
cohesive to design
process and cannot be
translated to
architectural design
solution.

E
NOT
ADDRESSED

The ideas are

vague. The
intention is to
ambitious and
hyphaluting.

(5 pts)

( 0 pt )

Most argument
presented are vague and
irrelevant.

The significance is
either not present
or very poorly
described.

(1 pt)

( 0 pt )

RATIN
G

SCOPE AND
DELIMITATION

10

THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK

20

REVIEW OF RELATED
LITERATURE (LOCAL &
FOREIGN)

10

TENTATIVE SITE
CRITERIA

10

Articulately explains the

limit and extent of the
study and methodological
flaws in outstanding and
logical argument.

Student does a good job in

outlining the limit and
extent of the study and
methodological flaws.

Student attempts to
outline potential
methodological flaws in
the study, and is
partially successful in
doing so.

Student attempts to
outline potential
methodological flaws of
the study, but does so
sparsely and/or
ineffectively.

(10 pts)

(9 7 pts)

(6 -5 pts)

(3 pts)

Cites related previous

studies or projects. These
collection of studies were
analyzed for differences
and commonalities about
the proposed project.
Significance to the topic is
unquestionable.

Cites related previous

studies or projects. but
commonalities and
differences are not
covered in as much depth,
or as explicit, as expected.
Significance to the course
is evident.

Cites related studies or

project. Significance to
the course is evident but
does not summarize or
explain them clearly or
sufficiently.

Related Studies are of

little significance to the
proposed project

(10 pts)

(9 7 pts)

(6 -5 pts)

(3 pts)

Able to formulate tentative

site selection criterion
tailor fitted for the
proposed design project.

Site Selection Criterion is

nearly specific or tailor fit
for the proposed design
project.

.Most of the criterion

are too general and not
specific for the
proposed design project

(10 pts)

(9 7 pts)

(6 -5 pts)

Demonstrate strong core

knowledge of topic,
Strong evidence of
preparation, rehearsal, and
use of prior feedback
received.

PRESENTATION

30

MASTERY

20

Consistently goes beyond

expectations and
demonstrates mastery of
core knowledge, reasoning
and logical arguments

10

Over-all presentation is
flawless and
commendable. A very
professional output.

(20-19 pts)
ORAL & VISUAL
COMMUNICATION SKILL

(10 pts)

(1815 pts)
Over-all presentation is
neat and organized. Meets
the expectation of a
Lasallian Graduate

(9 7 pts)

Some evidence of
preparation, rehearsal,
and use of prior
feedback received

(14-12 pts)
Over-all presentation
approaches the
expectation of a
Lasallian Graduate

(6 -5 pts)

Student does not

outline potential
methodological
flaws of the study

( 0 pt )

No Related
Literature were
presented

( 0 pt )

Criterions are too

general. It does not
demonstrate certain
level of novelity or
innovation.

No Criterion and
tentative site is
presented.

(3 pts)

( 0 pt )

Little evidence of
preparation, rehearsal,
and use of prior
feedback received

Overall impact is
not convincing.

(6 pts)

( 0 pt )

An attempt but did not

met the level of
expectation for a senior
student.

Output is sloppy
and unprofessional

(2 pts)

( 0 pt )

TOTAL POINTS

HILARIO L. GUTIERREZ, uap

Design 9/10 Coordinator

Panelist: ___________________________________
Date: ___________________________________

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY-DASMARINAS
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology
Architecture Department

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 9 COMMENT SHEET

Project Justification
Site Justification
THESIS PROPONENT/S : ____________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT TITLE
: ____________________________________________________________________________
ADVISER
: ____________________________________________________________________________
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND OTHER CONCERNS DURING PRESENTATION
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PANELIST:
Kindly list down all questions, comments and other concerns that may strike you during the presentation to be used as a guide during
the panel discussion.
Place a check mark on all questions successfully answered by the proponent/s.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FINAL COMMENTS AND OTHER CONCERNS
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PANELIST:
Kindly list down all comments and other concerns that may arise during deliberations as well as any other questions not answered
successfully by the proponent/s during the panel discussion.
This shall serve as the justification / basis of the grade given to the proponent/s for this particular defense.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PANELIST: _______________________________________ DATE: ____________________________________________
(Signature over printed name)