DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY – DASMARIÑAS
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 9 (ARCH511/L) ASSESSMENT RUBRIC for Project Based proposal
(Topic/Title Defense)
THESIS PROPONENT : GAMALIEL JOHN A. DINCO Adviser: AR. JOSE RONALDENNIS O. ASIS
PROPOSED TOPIC/TITLE : EL FRAILE: A RESTORATION OF FORT DRUM, TERNATE, CAVITE
_______________________________________________________________ □ approved □ disapproved
A B C D E
CRITERIA WT EXCEEDS SATISFACTORY MET CRITERIA LESS SATISFACTORY NOT RATING
EXPECTATION ADDRESSED
The accomplishment is Work is above of Work is in range of Basic knowledge and Work is below the
GENERAL DESCRIPTION exemplary approaching to acceptable criterion with acceptable criterion with understanding yet acceptable
perfection only few/minor comments more than half of the translation and application criterion.
and citation. requirements are satisfied. did not met expectation.
PROBLEM & ITS SETTING 50%
Clearly identifies and Successfully identifies and Able to identifies main Unable to clearly identify, Fails to identify,
Introduction 20 summarizes main issues summarizes the main issues/problem situation connect or support the summarize, or
(Rationale, Background, and successfully explains issues, and to some but fails to summarize issue to the propose explain the main
why/how problems or ques- extent only few were not or explain them clearly topic based on the problem or ques-
Problem Statement)
tions are realized; Able to clearly explain why/how or sufficiently. information presented. tion. Represents
synthesize and adrressed problems are realized. the issues inaccu-
the identified issues with Able to synthesize and rately or inappro-
anticipated solution and adrressed the identified priately.
expected output. issues with few antici-
pated solution.
(20-16 pts) (15 – 11 pts) (10 – 5 pts) (3 pts) ( 0 pt )
Goal and Objectives were Project Goal and objectives Some of the ideas are More than half of the ideas The ideas are
Project Goals & Objectives 15 clearly identified for validity are clearly identified. Most vague. Half of the ideas are vague. Not more than vague. The
and attainability. All state- of the ideas listed are co- are cohesive to design half are cohesive to design intention is too
(The End Vision of the ment are cohesive to design hesive to design process process that can be process and cannot be ambitious and
Proponent, List of Outputs) process and can be transla- and can be translated to ar - translated to architectural translated to architectural unattainable in
ted to architectural design chitectural design solution. design solution. design solution. practical sense.
solution.
(15 pts) (14 – 10 pts) (9 – 5 pts) (3 pts) ( 0 pt )
Significance & Expected Clearly discuss and satisfy Reasonably argue the Reasonably argue the Most argument presen- There is no sig-
Output Specifically identifies the 10 the importance of the topic. importance of topic / importance of topic / ted are hazy and nificance & ex-
opportunity, perceived contribution to Answers were given in clear project. Most answers project. Less than half irrelevant. No target pected output to
its intended primary users, the and logical sequence. given are in clear and of argument given are beneficiaries and too society.No spe-
society, and architecture logical sequence vague and irrelevant. shallow contribution to cific beneficiaries.
society.
(10 - 8 pts) (7 - 6 pts) (5 - 3 pts) (1 pt) ( 0 pt )
Articulately explains the limit Student does a good job Student attempts to outline Student attempts to outline Student does not
Scope and Delimitation 5 and extent of the study and in outlining the limit and potential methodological potential methodological outline potential
Identifies the limit or extent of the methodological flaws in extent of the study and flaws in the study, and is flaws of the study, but does methodological
study. Cite items/issues not inluded in outstanding and logical methodological flaws. partially successful in so sparsely and/or ineffec- flaws of the study
argument. doing so. tively.
the study.
(5 pts) (4pts) (3 pts) (1 pt) ( 0 pt )
THEORETICAL 30%
FRAMEWORK
Review of Related Literature Cites related previous Cites related previous Cites related studies or Related Studies/ projects No Related
(Local & Foreign) and 20 studies or projects. These studies or projects. but project. Significance to are of little significance to Literature/ related
Conceptual Framework collection of studies were commonalities and the course is evident the proposed project. projects/ related
Paradigm analyzed for differences differences are not but does not summarize Synthesis for further studies was
A summary/synopsis of similar and commonalities about covered in as much depth, or explain them clearly study enhancement were presented.
projects/literature that may have the proposed project. or as explicit, as or sufficiently.Concep- not clearly explained.
directly or indirectly given the idea or Significance to the topic is expected. Significance to tual framework needs Conceptual framework is
notion what project to propose. unquestionable. the course is evident. modification. confusing and blurred.
(20 pts) (19 – 10 pts) (9 - 5 pts) (3 pts) ( 0 pt )
Able to formulate tentative Site selection criterion is Most of the criterion are Criterions are too No Criterion was
Tentative Site 10 site selection criterion fitted nearly specific for the too general and not general. It does not presented.
Criteria for the proposed design proposed design project. specific for the pro- demonstrate certain level
project. posed design project of novelty or innovation.
(10 pts) (9 – 7 pts) (6 -5 pts) (3 pts) ( 0 pt )
PRESENTATION 20%
The student clearly explai- Demonstrate strong core Some evidence of Little evidence of Overall impact is
Mastery and Oral 10 ned in English & satisfac- knowledge of topic, preparation, rehearsal, preparation, rehearsal, not convincing.
Communication Skill torily answered the argu- Strong evidence of and use of prior feed- and use of prior feedback
ments and inquiries raised preparation, rehearsal, back received.Attire is received. Posture and
from the panel of jurors. and use of prior feedback good but posture shows attire evidently shows
The posture and attire received. Posture and lack of confidence. unpreparedness.
shows readiness to become attire is fairly acceptable
professional.
(10 pts) (9 – 7 pts) (6 -5 pts) (3 pts) ( 0 pt )
Over-all presentation is Over-all presentation is Over-all presentation An attempt but did not Output is sloppy
Visual Enhancement 10 flawless and commendable. neat and organized. approaches the met the level of and
A very professional output. Meets the expectation of a expectation of a expectation for a senior unprofessional
Lasallian Graduate. Lasallian Graduate student.
(10 pts) (9 – 7 pts) (6 -5 pts) (3 - 1 pt.) ( 0 pt )
100 TOTAL POINTS
Prepared by : HPG 2018 Panelist: __________________________________________ Date: _______________
Design 9 Coordinator Signature over printed name
DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY – DASMARIÑAS
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 9 (ARCH511/L) ASSESSMENT RUBRIC for Proj. based proposal
(Pre-final Defense)
THESIS PROPONENT : ___________________________________ Adviser:________________________
PROPOSED TOPIC/TITLE :
______________________________________________________________ □ approved □ disapproved
A B C D E
CRITERIA WT EXCEEDS SATISFACTORY MET CRITERIA LESS SATISFACTORY NOT RATING
EXPECTATION ADDRESSED
The accomplishment is Work is above of Work is in range of Basic knowledge and Work is below the
GENERAL DESCRIPTION exemplary approaching to acceptable criterion with acceptable criterion with understanding yet acceptable
perfection only few/minor comments more than half of the translation and application criterion.
and citation. requirements are satisfied. did not met expectation.
SITE JUSTIFICATION 30%
Site criteria was Site criteria was The system of The criteria presented The criteria
Site Selection Criteria 10 systematically derived. systematically derived. derivation of site criteria was as if presented for presented was
Issue rejoinder and other However, there is a need is very confusing.The the purpose of complying irrelevant to the
Derivation Process factors were satisfactorily for minor substantiation of substantiation presen- with the requirements of study and the
addressed as the basis. the philosophy behind it. ted to support the philo- the guidelines. issue rejoinder
sophy is not enough. were not explain-
ned as a basis.
(10 pts) (9 – 7 pts) (5-3 pts) (1 pt.) (0 pt.)
The site analysis was The site analysis was The site analysis was The site analysis was There was no
Site Inventory 10 systematic and systematic and compre- very confusing. The on- very superficial. The actual site
comprehensive. There hensive.But there was a site documentation was presented inventory was inventory
(Existing site transportation was an actual on-site need to further enhance not done with conscien- obviously extracted from conducted.
and utility system, documentation and in- the actual on-site docu- tious effort. Doubtful on google map or google Pictures were
vegetation, climate, ventory. There is a mentation and inventory lot profIles presented. earth. Necessary map- obviously taken
topography, landmark, land comprehensive list of as well as the list of dif- Needs more supporting ping were not presented from website.
use & zoning etc.) different features of the ferent features of the cho- documents. on site inventory.
chosen site. sen site.
(10 pts) (9 – 7 pts) (5-3 pts) (1 pt.) (0 pt.)
Site Programming Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules 7 and 8 of the There was no
(Circulation, zoning, bldg. 10 National Building Code National Building Code, National Building Code, National Building code, and consideration of
was primarily considered. and the findings on site and the findings on site the findings on site rule 7 & 8. site
organization, landscaping & Similarly, findings on site inventory and analysis inventory and analysis inventory and analysis were programming
was given little attention. taken for granted.
orientation) inventory and analysis was was considered. However, factors were not
considered and explained there are few minor clearly explained
satisfactorily. corrections needed.
(10 pts) (9 – 7 pts) (5-3 pts) (1 pt.) (0 pt.)
ARCHITECTURAL SPACE 40%
PROGRAMMING
The general and specific The general and specific The general and specific The general and specific The general and
Space Derivation 5 spaces was derived spaces was derived spaces was simply pre- spaces were as simply specific spaces
systematically with the use of systematically with the use of sented narratively without assumed with insufficient were as simply
generally acceptable generally acceptable using generally acceptable or doubtful basis. Other assumed without
methods. The process was methods. However there is a methods. There was no ra-
also supported with rational need for further supporting tional narratives to support
considerations were not a basis.
narratives. rational narratives. the presented spaces. included to justify space.
(5 pts) (4 pts) (3 pts) (1 pt.) (0 pt.)
The presented space The presented space The presented space Space sizing and quan- Space sizing and
Space Sizing and 15 sizing and quantification is sizing and quantification sizing and quantification tification has no basis at quantification has
commendable and was was logically presented was fairly presented. all. Only few mathema- no basis at all. No
Quantification supported by mathema- but there are few items There was majority of tical narratives was pre- tabulation and
tical narratives. Total gross which was unsupported spaces w/c has no sented in the study.There calculation of total
floor area per bldg. was with mathematical supporting mathema- was no total gross floor gross floor area.
presented. narratives tical narratives. area per building.
(15 pts) (14 – 10 pts) (9 - 5 pts) (3 pts.) (0 pt.)
The space organization The space organization There is a little The spaces were not There was no
Planning Analysis 20 manifested familiarity in the manifested familiarity in the manifestation of space properly organized or activity and beha-
process of functional process of functional grou- organization process. there was missing vior analysis,Cir-
(Functional grouping, activi- grouping and zoning. Spaces ping and zoning. However, Majority of spaces were essential space which in culation was cha-
ty, behavior, proximity and were juxtaposed based on some spaces were mispla- misplaced in relation to return prejudice the otic. Spaces were
circulation, functional, utility ced in relation to circulation, circulation, functional,
spatial organization) and privacy relationship functional, utility and privacy. utility and privacy. functional, utility and misplaced or
privacy requisites. missing.
(20 pts) ( 19 – 15 pts) (14 – 5 pts) (3 pts.) (0 pt.)
CONCEPTUALIZATION 10%
Site concept & bldg. form Site concept & bldg. form There was en effort in Site concept & bldg. form There was no
Initial Site Concept and 10 was presented and was was presented and was form concept but were confusing and bldg. form and
clearly sited on the clearly sited on the generally affect the site needed site concept
Building Form development proposition develop-ment proposition circulation and major improvement even presented.
with justifiable explanation. with minor revisions. orientation.Some though it was presented
amenities and elements for the sake of
were not considered compliance.
(10 pts) (9 – 7 pts) (5 - 3 pts) (1 pt.) (0 pt.)
PROJ. TECHL. REQMNTS. 5%
Majority of the proj.technl. Majority of the proj.technl. Some requirements Most of the requirements The presented
5 reqmnts. necessary for the reqmnts. necessary for were not properly essential for the project technl. reqmnts.
proposal were relevant the proposal were intro- specified and described were not included and were obviously
and introduced. Items duced.However, some in the presentation specified in the study. irrelevant in the
were elaborately specified requirements was not papers. study and no spe-
included. cific description
(5 pts) (4 pts) (3 pts) (1 pt.) (0 pt.)
PRESENTATION 15%
The student clearly and Generally, the student The student at least Little evidence of Overall impact is
Mastery and Oral 10 confidently explained in was able to explain clearly showed effort to orally preparation, rehearsal, not convincing.
English his or her thesis and directly. Fully aware explain the proposition and use of prior feedback The student does
Communication skills study. Furthermore, satis- of the time and the use of in English and Taga- received. More often not satisfactorily
factorily answered the English in communication log. However, there cannot communicate in answer or give
arguments and inquiries although there are few were very obvious English. Posture and rejoinder to the
raised from the panel of apprehensive moments. manifestations of con- facial expression panel’s
jurors. The posture and The posture, eye contact, fusion and inconsis- evidently showed question(s).
attire shows his or her and attire were fairly tencies. Most of the confusion and More often
readiness to become acceptable as evidence of time, the student cannot unpreparedness. cannot commu-
professional. being prepared. give rejoinder to the nicate in English..
panel’s query but still
manage to maintain
his/her posture and eye
contact.
(10 pts) (9 - 7 pts) (5 - 3 pts) (1pt) ( 0 pt )
Over-all presentation is Over-all presentation is The student’s visual An attempt but did not The student did
Visual Enhancement 5 flawless and commen- neat and organized. The and graphical enhance- met the level of expec- not visibly supply
dable. A very professional visual and graphical ment was fairly tation for a senior stu- matured, well-
output. PPT presentation enhancement was acceptable. Although, dent. Tables,charts, prepared
were very clear, readable generally reasonable and there is a manifestation graphs, or photos were graphical and
and properly arranged. conscientious effort is of conscientious effort, blurred or poorly visible. visual
very visible. There are the enhancement enhancements
only few negligible outcome is very
inaccuracies. rudimentary.
(5 pts) (4 pts) (3 pts) (1 pt) ( 0 pt )
100 TOTAL POINTS
Panelist: ___________________________________
(Signature over printed name)
Date: ___________________________________
Prepared by: HPG 2018
Design 9 Coordinator
DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY-DASMARINAS
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology
Architecture Department
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 9 COMMENT SHEET
THESIS TITLE : EL FRAILE: A RESTORATION OF FORT DRUM, TERNATE, CAVITE
STUDENT NAME : GAMALIEL JOHN A. DINCO
ADVISER: AR. JOSE RONALDENNIS O. ASIS
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)
