Remember, ALL of the areas in this chapter will be considered WRITTEN WORKS AND PERFORMANCE TASKS. All researchers will have the same ONLY in area 7. Make sure to put the corrected versions of your output as this will be final and irrevocable except for suggestions and recommendations by your research instructor. Your research instructor will rate the output based on the rubrics below. The lead researcher will rate his/her research associates based on the gravity of effort shared. The lead researcher MUST see to it that there is a proper basis for the grade he/she will give. The grading will be done in front of the research associates to avoid biases/personal gains. NO EXTENSIONS will be given in the submission. The lead researcher shall submit all the outputs to the instructor. The output SHOULD be clean and presentable. The score given will be final and irrevocable. Submit your output on or before December 18, 2017. The submission is 5:00 pm ONLY. PEER ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION Researchers Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Score Lead Researcher: HENRY JUDE MANINGO Asst. Lead Researcher: CHRYSANTHA RABOY Research Associate: LINESSA BONTILAO Research Associate: PAUL ROMERO Research Associate: JETRO PRESILLAS Research Associate: NONIEL JOHN VASQUEZ ERNO, LPT Research Lecturer Excellent (30-27 points): Good: (26-23 points): Average: (22-18 points): Below Average (17 points below): Excellent to superior work in Good to fair work in most Passing work, but in serious all areas as indicated in the aspects; minor deficiency in need of improvement in many Confusing, explanation or instructors’ written relation to instructors’ written areas, especially in regard to completion; little conforming to expectations; exemplary expectations regarding content, form and content; minimal instructors’ written performance, participation, writing style or procedures; grasp of facts, analysis and expectations regarding content, creativity and writing; fully adequate grasp of facts, application; very few clear writing style or procedures; addresses the criterion; analysis, and practical statements or explanations overall, below professional excellent grasp of facts, application; clear statements quality standards; not quality analysis and application; and explanations are limited, work consistently clear statements but above average quality and explanations Area of Assessment Points Earned
Remember, ALL of the areas in this chapter will be considered WRITTEN WORKS AND PERFORMANCE TASKS. All researchers will have the same ONLY in area 7. Make sure to put the corrected versions of your output as this will be final and irrevocable except for suggestions and recommendations by your research instructor. Your research instructor will rate the output based on the rubrics below. The lead researcher will rate his/her research associates based on the gravity of effort shared. The lead researcher MUST see to it that there is a proper basis for the grade he/she will give. The grading will be done in front of the research associates to avoid biases/personal gains. NO EXTENSIONS will be given in the submission. The lead researcher shall submit all the outputs to the instructor. The output SHOULD be clean and presentable. The score given will be final and irrevocable. Submit your output on or before December 18, 2017. The submission is 5:00 pm ONLY. PEER ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION Researchers Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Area 7 Total Score Lead Researcher: HENRY JUDE MANINGO Asst. Lead Researcher: CHRYSANTHA RABOY Research Associate: LINESSA BONTILAO Research Associate: PAUL ROMERO Research Associate: JETRO PRESILLAS Research Associate: NONIEL JOHN VASQUEZ ERNO, LPT Research Lecturer Excellent (30-27 points): Excellent to superior work in all areas as indicated in the instructors’ written expectations; exemplary performance, participation, creativity and writing; fully addresses the criterion; excellent grasp of facts, analysis and application; consistently clear statements and explanations Good: (26-23 points): Good to fair work in most aspects; minor deficiency in relation to instructors’ written expectations regarding content, writing style or procedures; adequate grasp of facts, analysis, and practical application; clear statements and explanations are limited, but above average quality Average: (22-18 points): Passing work, but in serious need of improvement in many areas, especially in regard to form and content; minimal grasp of facts, analysis and application; very few clear statements or explanations Below Average (17 points below): Confusing, explanation or completion; little conforming to instructors’ written expectations regarding content, writing style or procedures; overall, below professional quality standards; not quality work Area of Assessment Points Earned