Talk:Civil society: Difference between revisions

From VCSEwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{| border=1 | '''Criteria/levels of fulfillment''' || max points: 10 || max points: 5 || points: 0 || '''Assessment''' || |- | '''Content'''|| '''quality of resources ...")
 
(Assessment of the gorup work)
Line 2: Line 2:
  | '''Criteria/levels of fulfillment''' || max points: 10 || max points: 5 || points: 0 || '''Assessment''' ||         
  | '''Criteria/levels of fulfillment''' || max points: 10 || max points: 5 || points: 0 || '''Assessment''' ||         
  |-
  |-
  | '''Content'''|| '''quality of resources &well-founded argumentation''':|| Text contains interesting points and observations but the work with literature resources is insuffiecient: information is not supported by referencing to the source and also there are sometimes only statements without any specific content, just phrases || || 5 ||
  | '''Content''' - '''quality of resources &well-founded argumentation''':|| || Text contains interesting points and observations but the work with literature resources is insuffiecient: information is not supported by referencing to the source and also there are sometimes only statements without any specific content, just phrases || || 5 ||
  |-
  |-
  | '''Context''' || '''wide context & core of the problem identified''': problems understood in their inter-relationships although not always clearly expressed || || || 10 ||           
  | '''Context''' - '''wide context & core of the problem identified''':||  problems understood in their inter-relationships although not always clearly expressed || || || 10 ||           
  |-
  |-
  | '''Practical relevance''' || combines '''general, theoretical knowledge''' and global features with '''practical consequences''' and local context: shows concrete examples and has practical conclusions || || || 10 ||               
  | '''Practical relevance''' || combines '''general, theoretical knowledge''' and global features with '''practical consequences''' and local context: shows concrete examples and has practical conclusions || || || 10 ||               
  |-
  |-
  | '''Focus''' || '''strong conclusions''': || values behind the topic are not clear; main problems are identified and discussed but there are numerous topics with noclear priority so the conclusions are rather weak || || 5 ||             
  | '''Focus''' - '''strong conclusions''': ||  || values behind the topic are not clear; main problems are identified and discussed but there are numerous topics with noclear priority so the conclusions are rather weak || || 5 ||             
  |-
  |-
  | '''Clarity''' || '''logical structure''' of the text: || ideas are sometimes not clear, focus of (every)paragraph need to be more specific; details need to be used in proper context (of other elements and main idea) || || 5 ||           
  | '''Clarity''' - '''logical structure''' of the text: || || ideas are sometimes not clear, focus of (every)paragraph need to be more specific; details need to be used in proper context (of other elements and main idea) || || 5 ||           
  |-
  |-
  | '''Critical approach''' || '''balanced text''': opposing views presented || || || 10 ||           
  | '''Critical approach''' || '''balanced text''': opposing views presented || || || 10 ||           
  |-
  |-
  | '''Commitment ''' || '''ethics (writing) &length (text)''': || writing process sometimes lacks commitment; time spent on writing might be OK but not properly coordinated effort || || 5 ||             
  | '''Commitment ''' - '''ethics (writing) &length (text)''': || || writing process sometimes lacks commitment; time spent on writing might be OK but not properly coordinated effort || || 5 ||             
  |-
  |-
  | '''Individual input & risk-taking ''' || '''initiative in researching topic''': || rather insufficient initiative in finding proper resources (or not cited in the text) || || 5 ||             
  | '''Individual input & risk-taking ''' - '''initiative in researching topic''': || || rather insufficient initiative in finding proper resources (or not cited in the text) || || 5 ||             
  |-
  |-
  | '''Formal features ''' || respecting '''academic genre''': || proper length of paragraphs, sufficient titles and subtitles, but sources not properly cited in the text and in the list of references – citation format not respected || || 5 ||               
  | '''Formal features ''' - respecting '''academic genre''': || || proper length of paragraphs, sufficient titles and subtitles, but sources not properly cited in the text and in the list of references – citation format not respected || || 5 ||               
  |-
  |-
  | '''Reaction on the peer review ''' || '''reviewer’s comments respected''' || || not relevant at the moment - not finalized || 0 ||                     
  | '''Reaction on the peer review ''' - '''reviewer’s comments respected'''||  || || not relevant at the moment - not finalized || 0 ||                     
  |-
  |-
  | '''Total (points)''' || || || || '''60''' ||               
  | '''Total (points)''' || || || || '''60''' ||               


|}
|}
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 17:06, 26 January 2012 (CET)

Revision as of 17:06, 26 January 2012

Criteria/levels of fulfillment max points: 10 max points: 5 points: 0 Assessment
Content - quality of resources &well-founded argumentation: Text contains interesting points and observations but the work with literature resources is insuffiecient: information is not supported by referencing to the source and also there are sometimes only statements without any specific content, just phrases 5
Context - wide context & core of the problem identified: problems understood in their inter-relationships although not always clearly expressed 10
Practical relevance combines general, theoretical knowledge and global features with practical consequences and local context: shows concrete examples and has practical conclusions 10
Focus - strong conclusions: values behind the topic are not clear; main problems are identified and discussed but there are numerous topics with noclear priority so the conclusions are rather weak 5
Clarity - logical structure of the text: ideas are sometimes not clear, focus of (every)paragraph need to be more specific; details need to be used in proper context (of other elements and main idea) 5
Critical approach balanced text: opposing views presented 10
Commitment - ethics (writing) &length (text): writing process sometimes lacks commitment; time spent on writing might be OK but not properly coordinated effort 5
Individual input & risk-taking - initiative in researching topic: rather insufficient initiative in finding proper resources (or not cited in the text) 5
Formal features - respecting academic genre: proper length of paragraphs, sufficient titles and subtitles, but sources not properly cited in the text and in the list of references – citation format not respected 5
Reaction on the peer review - reviewer’s comments respected not relevant at the moment - not finalized 0
Total (points) 60

--Jana Dlouha 17:06, 26 January 2012 (CET)

Retrieved from "https://vcsewiki.czp.cuni.cz/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_society&oldid=2192"