831
edits
VCSEwiki:Peer review form for case studies: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
VCSEwiki:Peer review form for case studies (view source)
Revision as of 13:01, 30 August 2017
, 13:01, 30 August 2017Admin moved page Peer review form for case studies to VCSEwiki:Peer review form for case studies
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Used for Case study review process in 2010/2011 course {| border=1 | '''Criteria''' || '''Quality aspects to be considered in the case study''' || '''High/Medium/Low''' || ...") |
m (Admin moved page Peer review form for case studies to VCSEwiki:Peer review form for case studies) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | |||
=== Outline of review criteria for Case study review === | |||
{| border=1 | {| border=1 | ||
| '''Criteria''' || '''Quality aspects to be considered in the case study''' || '''High/Medium/Low''' || | | '''Criteria''' || '''Quality aspects to be considered in the case study''' || '''High/Medium/Low''' || | ||
| Line 12: | Line 13: | ||
| '''Practical relevance''' || Main goal of the case study writing is transmitting of some practical experience – was this goal fulfilled? || || | | '''Practical relevance''' || Main goal of the case study writing is transmitting of some practical experience – was this goal fulfilled? || || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Focus''' || | | '''Focus''' || Core problem of the case identified. | ||
Conclusions made it explicit and transferable. | |||
|| || | |||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Clarity''' || Logical structure: from description to generalization and posing analytical questions. | | '''Clarity''' || Logical structure: from description to generalization and posing analytical questions. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 34: | ||
|} | |} | ||
==Form for students' evaluation== | |||
- just copy and paste (from editing mode), and fill in you assessment in relevant column! | |||
{| border=1 | |||
| '''Criteria''' || '''High/Medium/Low''' || | |||
|- | |||
| '''Content'''|| 10 / 5 / 0 || | |||
|- | |||
| '''Context''' || || | |||
|- | |||
| '''Practical relevance''' || || | |||
|- | |||
| '''Focus''' || || | |||
|- | |||
| '''Clarity''' || || | |||
|- | |||
| '''Critical approach''' || || | |||
|- | |||
| '''Elaborateness (commitment) ''' || || | |||
|- | |||
| '''Individual input & risk-taking ''' || || | |||
|- | |||
| '''Reader's attractiveness''' || || | |||
|- | |||
| '''Formal features ''' || || | |||
|- | |||
| '''Total (points)''' || '''max 100''' || | |||
|} | |||
=== Written Comments for Author(s) === | |||
..................................................................................... | |||
=== General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option): === | |||
1. Acceptable as is | |||
2. Acceptable with minor modifications | |||
3. Might be accepted after major modifications | |||
4. Unacceptable (provide reasons): | |||
..................................................................................... | |||