445
edits
Talk:Civil society: Difference between revisions
Assessment of the gorup work
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{| border=1 | '''Criteria/levels of fulfillment''' || max points: 10 || max points: 5 || points: 0 || '''Assessment''' || |- | '''Content'''|| '''quality of resources ...") |
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) (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''' | | '''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''' | | '''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''' | | '''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''' | | '''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 ''' | | '''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 ''' | | '''Individual input & risk-taking ''' - '''initiative in researching topic''': || || rather insufficient initiative in finding proper resources (or not cited in the text) || || 5 || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Formal features ''' | | '''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 ''' | | '''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) | |||