Talk:Conceptual levels of competence

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good but it could be more coherent. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Project management competence is desc...")
 
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:
  
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Robert Kjønås''==
 +
===Question 1 · TEXT===
 +
'''Quality of the summary:'''
 +
 +
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 1===
 +
The abstract gives us a good insight in what the article is about. However, there is some spelling mistakes in the abstract.
 +
 +
===Question 2 · TEXT===
 +
'''Structure and logic of the article:'''
 +
 +
Is the argument clear?
 +
 +
Is there a logical flow to the article?
 +
 +
Does one part build upon the other?
 +
 +
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 2===
 +
The flow in the article is ok. It is clear that the parts that is included in the introduction part is important for the rest of the article. However, the introduction could be written in a way that makes it easier for the reader to follow the red line in the article.
 +
 +
===Question 3 · TEXT===
 +
'''Grammar and style:'''
 +
 +
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
 +
 +
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 3===
 +
There is spelling mistakes and some grammatical errors, especially in the abstract. But there is not a lot of errors.
 +
 +
===Question 4 · TEXT===
 +
'''Figures and tables:'''
 +
 +
Are figures and tables clear?
 +
 +
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 4===
 +
The figure is clear and fits good in with the text. I noticed that the bibliography is aligned with the picture even though they are not related. This should be changed in my opinion.
 +
 +
===Question 5 · TEXT===
 +
'''Interest and relevance:'''
 +
 +
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
 +
 +
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 5===
 +
Through the abstract, it becomes clear that this text is related to the work of the Project Manager. Based on this, the article is very relevant. However, it could be explained more how the pm-competence is related to organizations and so on.
 +
 +
===Question 6 · TEXT===
 +
'''Depth of treatment:'''
 +
 +
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
 +
 +
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 6===
 +
The article is interesting and not too academic. It focuses on different aspects and how they are applied, which is good because it makes it easy to keep track of what the article is about. The depth of the article also seem to fit with the length of the article. If the article is longer, then it also needs to go deeper into the material. Looks good.
 +
 +
===Question 7 · TEXT===
 +
'''Annotated bibliography:'''
 +
 +
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
 +
 +
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
 +
 +
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 7===
 +
Key references is placed at the end of the article, and it seems like the key points in the article is based on facts and not opinions. The references is familiar books to this course, so it looks like a good reference list to me.
 +
 +
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Rikke Andersen''==
 +
===Question 1 · TEXT===
 +
'''Quality of the summary:'''
 +
 +
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 1===
 +
The language is confusing, I'm not certain what is meant by the author.
 +
The three different categories discussed in the article are listed which gives a nice overview.
 +
 +
===Question 2 · TEXT===
 +
'''Structure and logic of the article:'''
 +
 +
Is the argument clear?
 +
 +
Is there a logical flow to the article?
 +
 +
Does one part build upon the other?
 +
 +
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 2===
 +
The three categories stated from the beginning gives a natural flow throughout.
 +
 +
===Question 3 · TEXT===
 +
'''Grammar and style:'''
 +
 +
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
 +
Minor errors that will likely be corrected on a second read-through
 +
 +
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
 +
No
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
The language can be sharper, shorter sentences could be an advantage
 +
 +
===Question 4 · TEXT===
 +
'''Figures and tables:'''
 +
 +
Are figures and tables clear?
 +
Only one figure, nice and clear
 +
 +
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
 +
The figure supports the text
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
Maybe a figure or two more - maybe of how "competence" changes as you move from an individual to teams to organizations
 +
 +
===Question 5 · TEXT===
 +
'''Interest and relevance:'''
 +
 +
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
 +
The topic is academically relevant, not sure if it is practical
 +
 +
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
 +
More time could be spent on explaining the importance
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
Elaborate on the importance of the topic, what happens if the correct level of competence is not present?
 +
 +
===Question 6 · TEXT===
 +
'''Depth of treatment:'''
 +
 +
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
 +
I think it will be once finished
 +
 +
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
 +
Not at the moment
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
-
 +
 +
===Question 7 · TEXT===
 +
'''Annotated bibliography:'''
 +
 +
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
 +
Currently only one annotated reference
 +
 +
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
 +
 +
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
 +
Seems to be
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
Add more references as you get further into depth with the topic

Latest revision as of 00:19, 26 February 2019

Contents

[edit] Feedback on Abstract

Text clarity Good but it could be more coherent.
Description of the tool/theory/concept Project management competence is described but could be more elaborated.
Explanation of the purpose of the article Needs to be elaborated
Relevance to curriculum Relevant
References Ok
Other At the moment, the focus of the article is bit broad and it is not clearly defined


[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Robert Kjønås

[edit] Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 1

The abstract gives us a good insight in what the article is about. However, there is some spelling mistakes in the abstract.

[edit] Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 2

The flow in the article is ok. It is clear that the parts that is included in the introduction part is important for the rest of the article. However, the introduction could be written in a way that makes it easier for the reader to follow the red line in the article.

[edit] Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 3

There is spelling mistakes and some grammatical errors, especially in the abstract. But there is not a lot of errors.

[edit] Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 4

The figure is clear and fits good in with the text. I noticed that the bibliography is aligned with the picture even though they are not related. This should be changed in my opinion.

[edit] Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 5

Through the abstract, it becomes clear that this text is related to the work of the Project Manager. Based on this, the article is very relevant. However, it could be explained more how the pm-competence is related to organizations and so on.

[edit] Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 6

The article is interesting and not too academic. It focuses on different aspects and how they are applied, which is good because it makes it easy to keep track of what the article is about. The depth of the article also seem to fit with the length of the article. If the article is longer, then it also needs to go deeper into the material. Looks good.

[edit] Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 7

Key references is placed at the end of the article, and it seems like the key points in the article is based on facts and not opinions. The references is familiar books to this course, so it looks like a good reference list to me.

[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Rikke Andersen

[edit] Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 1

The language is confusing, I'm not certain what is meant by the author. The three different categories discussed in the article are listed which gives a nice overview.

[edit] Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 2

The three categories stated from the beginning gives a natural flow throughout.

[edit] Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Minor errors that will likely be corrected on a second read-through

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? No

What would you suggest to improve? The language can be sharper, shorter sentences could be an advantage

[edit] Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? Only one figure, nice and clear

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? The figure supports the text

What would you suggest to improve? Maybe a figure or two more - maybe of how "competence" changes as you move from an individual to teams to organizations

[edit] Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? The topic is academically relevant, not sure if it is practical

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? More time could be spent on explaining the importance

What would you suggest to improve? Elaborate on the importance of the topic, what happens if the correct level of competence is not present?

[edit] Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? I think it will be once finished

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Not at the moment

What would you suggest to improve? -

[edit] Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Currently only one annotated reference

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Seems to be

What would you suggest to improve? Add more references as you get further into depth with the topic

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Conceptual_levels_of_competence&oldid=67101"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox