Difference between revisions of "Talk:RM analysis Sallamari Tynkkynen"
(Created page with "This is still an interesting page :)") |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | == 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 | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{defend|1|Focus of evaluation is on the analyses and the knowledge they intend to create.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 12:02, 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 | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{defend|2|The different perspectives properly considered.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 12:02, 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 | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{defend|3|Main strengths and application potential identified. Some good remarks on potential limitations of different analysis approaches or the decision/action options they address.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 12:02, 25 May 2011 (EEST)}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{attack|4|The points of improvement in different analyses could have been brought up a bit more bravely in order to better guide the further development of the analysis plans.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 12:02, 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 | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{defend|5|Clear, concise overall statements and a summary that tie into the given context.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 12:02, 25 May 2011 (EEST)}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | Score: 2/2 | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''Bonus points''' | ||
+ | * e.g. value adding extra work done | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{defend|6|Quite good application of the evaluation attributes according to the "properties of good assessment" -framework presented in the lectures and in Opasnet.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 12:02, 25 May 2011 (EEST)}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | Score: 1/2 | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''Total Score: 10/10 | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
This is still an interesting page :) | This is still an interesting page :) |
Latest revision as of 09:02, 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: Focus of evaluation is on the analyses and the knowledge they intend to create. --Mikko Pohjola 12:02, 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 12:02, 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: Main strengths and application potential identified. Some good remarks on potential limitations of different analysis approaches or the decision/action options they address. --Mikko Pohjola 12:02, 25 May 2011 (EEST)
⇤4: The points of improvement in different analyses could have been brought up a bit more bravely in order to better guide the further development of the analysis plans. --Mikko Pohjola 12:02, 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: Clear, concise overall statements and a summary that tie into the given context. --Mikko Pohjola 12:02, 25 May 2011 (EEST)
Score: 2/2
Bonus points
* e.g. value adding extra work done
←6: Quite good application of the evaluation attributes according to the "properties of good assessment" -framework presented in the lectures and in Opasnet. --Mikko Pohjola 12:02, 25 May 2011 (EEST)
Score: 1/2
Total Score: 10/10
This is still an interesting page :)