Talk:RM analysis June: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "== Exercise evaluation == '''Analysis vs. object of analysis''' * ability to differentiate between the analysis (knowledge creating process of studying real-world phenomena) an...") |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* ability to differentiate between the analysis (knowledge creating process of studying real-world phenomena) and the phenomena that the analysis looks into | * ability to differentiate between the analysis (knowledge creating process of studying real-world phenomena) and the phenomena that the analysis looks into | ||
{{defend|1|The evaluation focuses on the planned analyses and the knowledge they intend to create.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST)}} | |||
Score: /2 | Score: 2/2 | ||
'''Analysis-use relationship''' | '''Analysis-use relationship''' | ||
* ability to consider the possible meaning/value of the knowledge intended to be created by the planned analysis in different uses by different users | * ability to consider the possible meaning/value of the knowledge intended to be created by the planned analysis in different uses by different users | ||
{{defend|2|The different perspectives properly considered.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST)}} | |||
Score: /2 | Score: 2/2 | ||
'''Usability of evaluation''' | '''Usability of evaluation''' | ||
| Line 17: | Line 19: | ||
* critical and constructive remarks to help develop the analysis (plan) further | * critical and constructive remarks to help develop the analysis (plan) further | ||
{{defend|3|The evaluation indicates some strengths, some points of improvement, and provides some good advice on taking the analysis plans further.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST)}} | |||
Score: /4 | {{attack|4|Some of the guidance power of the evaluation is lost due to a bit of unnecessary description of the analysis contents.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST)}} | ||
Score: 3/4 | |||
'''Summarizing''' | '''Summarizing''' | ||
* wrapping-up of the individual evaluations and tying them into the context described in the exercise description | * wrapping-up of the individual evaluations and tying them into the context described in the exercise description | ||
{{defend|5|The evaluations are wrapped up and tied to the given context.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST)}} | |||
Score: /2 | Score: 2/2 | ||
'''Bonus points''' | '''Bonus points''' | ||
* e.g. value adding extra work done | * e.g. value adding extra work done | ||
{{defend|6|Also the swine flu/narcolepsy model evaluated.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST)}} | |||
Score: /2 | Score: 1/2 | ||
'''Total Score: /10 | '''Total Score: 10/10 | ||
Latest revision as of 08:14, 25 May 2011
Exercise evaluation
Analysis vs. object of analysis
* ability to differentiate between the analysis (knowledge creating process of studying real-world phenomena) and the phenomena that the analysis looks into
←--1: . The evaluation focuses on the planned analyses and the knowledge they intend to create. --Mikko Pohjola 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Score: 2/2
Analysis-use relationship
* ability to consider the possible meaning/value of the knowledge intended to be created by the planned analysis in different uses by different users
←--2: . The different perspectives properly considered. --Mikko Pohjola 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Score: 2/2
Usability of evaluation
* identification of major strengths as well as possible points of improvement * critical and constructive remarks to help develop the analysis (plan) further
←--3: . The evaluation indicates some strengths, some points of improvement, and provides some good advice on taking the analysis plans further. --Mikko Pohjola 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--4: . Some of the guidance power of the evaluation is lost due to a bit of unnecessary description of the analysis contents. --Mikko Pohjola 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Score: 3/4
Summarizing
* wrapping-up of the individual evaluations and tying them into the context described in the exercise description
←--5: . The evaluations are wrapped up and tied to the given context. --Mikko Pohjola 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Score: 2/2
Bonus points
* e.g. value adding extra work done
←--6: . Also the swine flu/narcolepsy model evaluated. --Mikko Pohjola 11:14, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Score: 1/2
Total Score: 10/10