Difference between revisions of "Talk:RM analysis June"
(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...") |
(→Exercise evaluation) |
||
| 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)
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)
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)
⇤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)
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)
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)
Score: 1/2
Total Score: 10/10
