| Criteria/levels of fulfillment | max points: 10 | max points: 5 | points: 0 | Assessment | |
| Content | quality of resources &well-founded argumentation: the authors have worked with literature properly: text is based on extensive list of references properly cited; statements are documented by appropriate citations and so essential arguments are based on reliable resources found specifically for this particular research; real data presented | 10 | |||
| Context | wide context & core of the problem identified: whole range of issues related to the topic was covered; problems understood in their inter-relationships, specific information fits into the whole picture | 10 | |||
| Practical relevance | combines general principles & driving forces and global features with practical consequences and local context: information about various aspects of the mining industry supports practical conclusions and solutions | 10 | |||
| Focus | strong conclusions: research question is clear, values behind the topic can be traced; main problems identified and addressed; through balanced structure and critical argumentation clear conclusions are derived | 10 | |||
| 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. Text is balanced, proper lenght of each part, and some gradation could be observed | 10 | |||
| Critical approach | balanced text: problems presented from diverse perspectives and based on objective data and findings | 10 | |||
| Commitment | ethics (writing) &length (text): writing process was constructive, held in dialogue and respect to the partner; time spent on writing above average | 10 | |||
| Individual input & risk-taking | initiative in researching topic: independent work with resources, new perspectives opened | 10 | |||
| Formal features | respecting academic genre: proper structure - introduction, discussion of the problem, and conlusion, well-defined paragraphs, sufficient titles and subtitles, sources properly cited in the text and in the list of references – citation format respected almost in all cases but some of the citations are missing (were only in the text, not list of references) | 8 | |||
| Reaction on the peer review | reviewer’s comments respected - there was reaction on the comments by the teacher which meant rather extensive reorganization of the text | 10 | |||
| Total (points) | 98 |
Hello, there were only two of you working very self-dependently on the theme which was one of the most difficult of all explored by students in this course. You have done your work very well, thanks for your commitment!
--Jana Dlouha 05:52, 27 January 2012 (CET)
Comments before finalizing:
...thanks for the text on Research institutions! Well done, I have some small comments here, and in the attached document, and I have to consider how to use it for wiki (this is rather stand-alone text, with very nice introduction and self-contained conclusions). BTW, for the wiki you have to log in, and we do not permit it always as some spammers are working there... So you have to "request" the access from us smile In your text, many very interesting "discoveries" appear. The research institutions point of view was most difficult, as obviously they have no real "standpoint", they usually serve those who need their support. But you have pointed out that they could play a very important role in democratization process - by providing objective information and some background for solutions (info, assessment and monitoring tools, ...), and, moreover, they could support information flows (incl. education). Thus they could empower small mining companies to work within environmental (and also social, health etc.) standards. There is also whole range of policy instruments that require a scientific feedback (such as indicators etc.). Finally, research is also important from the technological point of view - it is a driving force for innovations.
There is a lot of information in your text which you had to "extract" from your readings. Small weakness is that you mix up different aspects and so the structure is not too logical. For example, if you write about "Possible solutions" you might point out that science could be employed in different ways (e.g. for geological research to find more mineral resources) and sustainablity perspective slightly re-focuses its subject of exploration.
We will do some language improvement as soon as the text is finalized, but in some cases I do not undestand your point. Could you please do some minor changes before you submit it as a final text?
Thanks for your effort!
Jana
--Jana Dlouha 12:37, 12 January 2012 (CET)