Talk:RM analysis Minna Ruokolainen
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: . The focus of evaluation is on the analyses and the knowledge they intend to create. --Mikko Pohjola 11:50, 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 different perspectives properly considered. --Mikko Pohjola 11:50, 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: . Strengths and points of improvement in different analysis plans are pointed out in many places. The evaluation provides useful information for considerations on how to develop the plans further. --Mikko Pohjola 11:50, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--4: . Seems that there are a couple of misunderstanding of the plan contents leading some remarks astray. Not sure if this should be considered a fault of the plan description or a mistake in the evaluation. --Mikko Pohjola 11:50, 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
←--6: . The comments tie into the given context. --Mikko Pohjola 11:50, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--7: . No overall statement(s) to wrap up the individual evaluations provided. --Mikko Pohjola 11:50, 25 May 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Score: 1/2
Bonus points
* e.g. value adding extra work done
Total Score: 8/10