Talk:RM analysis Anna Kokkonen

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 analysis and the knowledge it creates/is intended to create. --Mikko Pohjola 09:28, 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 evaluation grasps well how the planned analysis and its results show in different light depending on different use/user perspective. --Mikko Pohjola 09:28, 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: . Major strengths identified. Some points of improvement identified. Some good remarks guiding further improvement. --Mikko Pohjola 09:28, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--4: . Perhaps a bit too "kind" evaluation. Some more constructive criticism would be helpful for those who further develop or apply the analysis plan. --Mikko Pohjola 09:28, 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: . Good concise wrap-up and tying into the given context. --Mikko Pohjola 09:28, 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