Talk:RM analysis Kati Iso-Markku

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 11:38, 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 of the analyses in different uses well considered. Interesting discussion of the findings from the journalist's perspective. --Mikko Pohjola 11:38, 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 some points of improvement identified. Some good remarks to guide the further development of the analysis plans. --Mikko Pohjola 11:38, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--4: . Some more constructive critique would add to the value of the evaluation for those who intend to take the plan further. --Mikko Pohjola 11:38, 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 overall statements that tie into the given context. --Mikko Pohjola 11:38, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Score: 2/2

Bonus points

* e.g. value adding extra work done

Total Score: 9/10