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