User:Stefania
DARM course 2013 - Homework 1
What is pragmatism?
- Pragmatism is an approach that emphasizes the linking between practice and theory. Knowledge and action are closely intertwined. The validation of a theory depends on its practical verification: in this sense, knowledge can be seen as a tool for action.
What is the trialogical approach to knowledge creation and learning?
- The trialogical approach is a new framework developed on the contest of collaborative learning, based on three basic metaphors of learning (acquisition, participation and knowledge-creation) associated with three different processes: one monological, within mind approach; another one dialogical, following an interaction approach through communication and participation; one more trialogical which develops shared artefacts and practices collaboratively. ----#: . Right. Briefly put: trialogical approach is about creating (shared) knowledge and learning by working on something (preferably concrete) in collaboration with others. --Mikko Pohjola 11:20, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
What are the properties of good assessment?
- A good assessment should have nine different properties that can be categorized into 3 groups. The first group refers to the quality of content, so the features of the information content in the assessment output and includes informativeness, calibration, coherence. The second one takes into account the applicability of the assessment and consists of relevance, availability, usability and acceptability. Finally, the third group concerns the efficiency that has to characterize the process and includes the efficiencies both intra- and inter-assessement.
←--#: . Good answers! --Mikko Pohjola 11:20, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
DARM course 2013 - Homework 2
Although the open assessment method was originally developed for providing solutions to the environment health problems, are there today any real applications on economic issues?
DARM course 2013 - Homework 3
Groupwork with Isabell Rumrich [[1]]
DARM course 2013 - Homework 4
Groupwork with Isabell Rumrich [[2]]
DARM course 2013 - Homework 5
Groupwork with Isabell Rumrich [[3]]
Homework 9
----#: . Please see User:Isabell Rumrich#DARM course 2013 – Homework 9 for an example how to present the characterizations and evaluations of homework 9 in three tables for easier reading and commenting. I recommend everyone to present their answers in this kind of format. You can do it e.g. by copying the tables as such and just replacing their contents. --Mikko Pohjola 09:58, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Homework 9: Evaluation of assessment
| Attribute | Categories | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Impacts |
|
Reduction of GHG emissions in Ghana due to the climate change is designed to affect mainly environmental and human health factors, but not only. Economic and social impacts are also very relevant. |
| Causes |
|
In the assessment, the principal cause of impacts is the transport. In particular, the use of firewood/charcoal emit large amounts of GHG emissions. |
| Problem owner |
|
Ghana Government is the main policy maker, who has responsibility to assess the issue. In addition, Public transport owners have to evaluate and decide which fuel it should be used, in order to mitigate GHG emissions from vehicles. They also need to redesign infrastructures to enhance the efficiency. In addition, schools and NGOs can organize sensitization programs and create awareness at local and national level on climate change issues. However, consumers and public are mainly affected by the impacts. |
| Target |
|
Ghana Government needs the assessment results, in order to design policies. Moreover, public transport companies are one of the most relevant intended users of the assessment results, because they have to decide which fuel it should be used. Also construction companies can make use of the assessment results, in order to redesign houses, following an action plan that allows to use materials that could be able to reduce GHG emissions. |
| Interaction |
|
The assessment interacts with the intended users in a SHARED way, because there is an open collaboration between the different actors. They retain their roles and responsibilities, but engage in open collaboration upon determining assessment questions to address and finding answers to them as well as implementing them in practice. |
| Dimension | Description |
|---|---|
| Scope of participation | All stakeholders (Ghana government, NGOs, transport companies, etc.) are allowed to participate in the process. |
| Access to information | No information is made available to participants about the issue |
| Timing of openness | The participants are allowed to participate from the beginning |
| Scope of contribution | It is not specified to which aspects of the issue exactly participants are invited to contribute. |
| Impact of contribution | The draft assessment gives a lot of weight to participant contributions. The problem is that it could be difficult to get all the groups interested. For this reason, the most weight should be given by transport companies and Ghana government. |
| Category | Description | Score | Guiding questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of content | Specificity, exactness and correctness of information. Correspondence between questions and answers. | 2 | The assessment question is very specific. The country (Ghana), the time (years 2013-2040) and the target have been exactly considered. But the answer is not included in the assessment. Therefore, the evaluation of quality of content is not very good, there is no correspondence between question and answer, because the answer totally misses. |
| Applicability | Relevance: Correspondence between output and its intended use. | 3 | The assessment question is good in relation to the purpose of the assessment. It seems that the assessment address enough well the intended needs of the users, also if not all actions proposed are realistic and can actually be taken. For this reason, the relevance can be considered average, but not excellent. |
| Availability: Accessibility of the output to users in terms of e.g. time, location, extent of information, extent of users. | 1 | The draft assessment does not contain any information about the accessibility of the output to users in terms of time, location, extent of information, extent of users, and so on. There are not all data necessary for the assessment. So, the evaluation in this case is very low. | |
| Usability: Potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its user(s) about the topic of assessment. | 2 | The potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its users is very limited, so the assessment could not be very useful for them. Anyway, the intended users are be able to understand what the assessment is about. | |
| Acceptability: Potential of the output being accepted by its users. Fundamentally a matter of its making and delivery, not its information content. | 1 | The assessment is not very acceptable, because it is very difficult to realize the actions proposed in the real life | |
| Efficiency | Resource expenditure of producing the assessment output either in one assessment or in a series of assessments. | 2 | The draft assessment is not so much efficient, because so much efforts (considering for example the time, the costs, many users intend to participate, the specific actions to take into account) are needed for making the assessment. |
Comments and ideas how to improve the draft
- The structure of the assessment is not very clear. It would be better if the assessment was presented using headings and subheadings, emphasizing the three main points of an assessment: Scope, Answer, Rationale.
- The idea to allow to participate so much people, companies, and institutions is very difficult to carry out, because too much generic. It should be better to focus on some specific groups, explaining what could be their contributions.
- The actions to take into account are so wide. It should be better to specified them (for example, how firewood/charcoal could be exactly reduced, which is precisely the role of participants in the achievement of the actions)
- Different options should be proposed and the conclusion should recommend one specific option and should explain the choice.
- Some points miss (considering for example endpoints and variables, they are not mentioned at all).