Talk:RM analysis Sallamari Tynkkynen
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) (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 12:02, 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: . 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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--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) (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: . Clear, concise overall statements and a summary that tie into the given context. --Mikko Pohjola 12:02, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Score: 1/2
Total Score: 10/10
This is still an interesting page :)
