| Criteria/levels of fulfillment |
max points: 10 |
max points: 5 |
points: 0 |
Assessment |
|
| Content |
quality of resources &well-founded argumentation: text shows knowledge, provides real(measurable) information; details go beyond the obvious or predictable; arguments are based on reliable resources found specifically for research; theories or statistical data presented |
insufficient information; details are more or less predictable; sometimes reliable but some of the argument is biased |
information is limited,repeated, no specific or original details; the author is just trying to sell an idea or opinion |
|
|
| Context |
wide context & core of the problem identified: problems understood in their inter-relationships, interlinked with similar themes, specific information fits into the whole picture; hidden causes of described phenomena are understood |
|
narrow context: problems not interrelated, random facts presented; specific information out of context |
|
|
| Practical relevance |
combines general, theoretical knowledge and global features with practical consequences and local context: shows concrete examples and has practical conclusions |
theoretical/practical knowledge and global/local perspective is not sufficiently balanced |
from either a purely global or the prevailing local perspective; examples from practice versus generalizations do not work; no practical relevance |
|
|
| Focus |
strong conclusions: values behind the topic are clear; main problem identified and discussed (analyzed); narrowing of topics -> channeled towards practical conclusions(at the end of the writing process) |
several topics with +- clear priorities; text is sometimes focused on minor problems and neglects importantones |
value orientation not certain; numerous topics with noclear priority; weak or totally impractical conclusions |
|
|
| Clarity |
logical structure of the text: ideas are clear, (every) paragraph declares a separate point; detail adds to the main idea, elements are in the right place |
ideas & focus of (every)paragraph need to be more specific; details need to be used in proper context(of other elements and main idea) |
ideas unclear, seem scrambled, jumbled, and disconnected; structure not logical; details do not fit with the main idea |
|
|
| Critical approach |
balanced text: opposing views presented |
|
one-sided ideology promoted |
|
|
| Commitment |
ethics (writing) &length (text): writing process basedon ethical values; time spent on writing above average |
|
ethical principles in writing not satisfactorily respected & time or attention paid to the writing not sufficient |
|
|
| Individual input & risk-taking |
initiative in researching topic: originality of the theme, independent work with resources |
some new perspectives, but some are replicated, insufficient initiative |
description of the problem does not bring any new perspectives; conclusions not original; insufficient resources |
|
|
| Formal features |
respecting academic genre: proper length of paragraphs, sufficient titles and subtitles, sources properly cited in the text and in the list of references – citation format respected |
no clear genre and structure, citation +/- OK |
mixed genre, titles and subtitles insufficient, sources not properly cited in the text, citation format not correct |
|
|
| Reaction on the peer review |
reviewer’s comments respected fully – or left out those which are not relevant – in which case an explanation is provided in the discussion |
|
reviewer’s comments not respected |
|
|
| Total (points) |
|
|
|
max 100 |
|
