Talk:RM analysis Enembe Okokon
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: . Evaluation focuses on the analyses as intended. --Mikko Pohjola 10:19, 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 meaning/value of the analyses in different uses well considered. --Mikko Pohjola 10:19, 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: . Well-reasoned remarks on strengths, points of improvement, as well as application of the analyses. --Mikko Pohjola 10:19, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Score: 4/4
Summarizing
* wrapping-up of the individual evaluations and tying them into the context described in the exercise description
←--4: . Wrap-up done and tied into the given context. --Mikko Pohjola 10:19, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Score: 2/2
Bonus points
* e.g. value adding extra work done
←--5: . Also the swine flu/narcolepsy model evaluated. Good application of the evaluation attributes as instructed by the "properties of good assessment" -framework presented in the lectures and in Opasnet. --Mikko Pohjola 10:19, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Score: 2/2
Total Score: 12/10