Research Proposal Guidelines v2017

Department of Civil Engineering

Talamban, Cebu City
Philippines 6000

CE 511GL – Project 1
Undergraduate Research Proposal Guidelines

A. Guidelines for Proposal Preparation and Submission

1. Proponents must write the research proposal using the prescribed template (CE 511GL
FORM-1-Undergraduate Research Proposal Template) with the guidance of an assigned
research adviser who is a faculty member of the department.

2. All the required contents or elements indicated in the template must, at the minimum, be
present in the proposal.

3. Proposals can only be submitted for a hearing upon proper endorsement of the research
adviser.

4. Proponents must submit a required number of hard copies of duly endorsed proposal to
the CE Undergraduate Research Coordinators not later than 14 days prior to the proposal
hearing schedule.

5. The CE Undergraduate Research Coordinators ensure that the Undergraduate Thesis

Committee members receive copies of the proposals on time.

6. Hard copies of the proposal documents must be personally handed over by the
proponents to the Undergraduate Thesis Committee members not later than 2 days after
submission of the final research proposal documents. Undergraduate Thesis Committee
members (or their respective staff) should sign the acknowledgement of receipt form
acknowledging that they have personally received copies of the undergraduate research
proposal manuscript, Undergraduate Research Proposal Guidelines and an electronic
copy of CE511GL Form-2a – Reviewer’s Comments v2017-1.

7. Proponents must also submit online a digital copy of the proposal via Turnitin not later
than the scheduled proposal hearing.

B. Guidelines for Proposal Review and Hearing

1. The Undergraduate Thesis Committee is constituted by qualified faculty members of the

Department of Civil Engineering (or coming from other departments) according to the
Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education (MORPHE) who have ample track

Page 1 of 3
Research Proposal Guidelines v2017

record in research. The committee includes at least two senior faculty members, the
Undergraduate Thesis Adviser and the Undergraduate Thesis Co-Adviser (if there is any)
and a committee chair (Institutional Guidelines for Thesis and Dissertation 2015).

2. Each member of the Undergraduate Thesis Committee assesses and evaluates the
proposal using the rubric (Undergraduate Research Proposal Rubric) prior to the proposal
hearing schedule.

3. On the set schedule for proposal hearing, all proponents and the Undergraduate Thesis
Committee must be present.

4. The Undergraduate Thesis Adviser facilitates the proposal hearing session for his/her
advised group. The Undergraduate Thesis Adviser is expected not to provide evaluative
comments or defense to the proposal during the hearing; rather, he/she notes all
comments and recommendations made by the panel.

5. The proposal hearing lasts for an hour apportioned and ordered as follows:

Time Allocation (min) Activity

Introduction of the proponents to the panel reviewers by the
2 Undergraduate Thesis Adviser; opening prayer by one of the
proponents.
Presentation of research objectives, conceptual
5 framework/research design by one of the proponents (use of
PowerPoint application is recommended).
Interactive discussion (Q & A) between the Undergraduate Thesis
35 Committee and the proponents regarding merits, deficiencies or
inadequacies of the proposal.
Panel deliberation on the merits of the proposal; formulation of
10
resolutions for improvement of the proposal.
Presentation of the resolutions by the Undergraduate Thesis
8
Adviser to the proponents.

C. Guidelines for Rating and Approval

1. The reviewers (Undergraduate Thesis Committee members) should use the rubric for
evaluating three major aspects of the proposal document, i.e., Research Title, Problem
and Reviews; Research Design Methods; Research Project Planning; and Research
Documentation. For each specific dimension/criterion under a given aspect, a possible
grade may be any of the following:

Grade Qualitative Description

4.0 Needs Improvement
2.1-3.0 Partially Meets Expectations
1.4-2.0 Meets Expectations
1.0-1.3 Exceeds Expectations

Page 2 of 3
Research Proposal Guidelines v2017

2. A proposal is only considered approved if all specific dimensions get a grade of

2.0 or better.

3. If a reviewer assigns a grade of 2.1 to 4.0, he/she must specify in clear terms (using
CE 511GL FORM-2a – Reviewer’s Comments) the improvements necessary so that
the grade can be raised to 2.0.

4. Proponents are given only one chance to revise the proposal for it to be approved.
Revision is based on the recommendations of the Undergraduate Thesis Committee
during the proposal hearing.

5. One copy of the revised proposal for each primary reviewer together with
FORM-2a – Reviewer’s Comments and FORM-2B – Response to Reviewer’s
Comments must be submitted to the Coordinator one week after the proposal
hearing. The Undergraduate Thesis Adviser ensures that all recommendations are
sufficiently addressed.

6. The Undergraduate Research Coordinators route the revised proposal to the thesis
committee who shall validate that the recommendations have been sufficiently
addressed by assigning a grade of at least 2.0 to the previously deficient dimensions of
the undergraduate research proposal.

7. A revised undergraduate research proposal that still do not comply with the
requirement for approval will mean a grade of INC for CE 511GL. To replace the
INC, the proponents either propose another topic or undergo another proposal hearing
in the succeeding semester or at a much later time when they are ready.

Page 3 of 3