Talk:Dan Pink on Motivation
(→Answer 6) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Mathias Steuch) |
||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
Good references and biblography. Consider adding a few lines in your bibliography about what the material is about and who the source is. | Good references and biblography. Consider adding a few lines in your bibliography about what the material is about and who the source is. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Mie Anker''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Good summary / abstract. Maybe a introduction to who Pink is and why him? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | I like you stay with Pink. It secures a common thread and very part build upon the other. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Some general ideas and thoughts about the argument: | ||
| + | # How much time is needed to implement this? | ||
| + | # Maybe studying theory X and Y could be interesting if you have some space left? | ||
| + | # In the section” 21st Century Challenges” – would something about the Maslow hierarchy of needs fit in? | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the Discussion / Limits – would this be possible to implement on the entire company or does Pink point out any limits? Maybe more about the tasks with a high level of routine. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Overall very good. I have no issues reading and understanding the text. Some sentences need a bit of reformulating and love, like “Managers have to can deal with them by openly acknowledging…” but nothing major. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Good and illustrative figure. Helps and does a better job than If the same thing should be explained in text. Remember to use to reference if you have one – or make it more clear? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Very interesting reading! And highly relevant. No doubts. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Very structured with mastery, purpose and autonomy. I think you very clearly communicate the perspective of Pink. It seems like Pink implies in figure 1 that no company would function with only 100% intrinsic motivated people, but it is not mentioned in the section of application. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Great. Maybe a bit more text, explaining each reference. | ||
Latest revision as of 07:31, 26 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is coherent. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. |
| Article purpose explanation | This can be further elaborated. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Make sure to link this within the context of project/program/portfolio management and not organizational management. Look into Project Human Resource as a source of inspiration (if it makes sense). |
| References | Make sure to use the list of references wherever appropriate. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Mathias Steuch
[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
Good abstract that is clear and informative. It starts rather abrupt, consider if the reader should be eased into the topic.
[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
Clear and logic structure of the article. The parts build nicely upon eachother.
[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
Very few minor errors. Good precise language. Consider adding some more sections like in the Application part.
[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 good. Remember to reference it if you were inspired by somewhere.
[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
I think it is very relevant. The Application part is particularly good. Consider if you could be more critical towards Pinks arguments.
[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. The article is very discriptive so i would like it if you could use some more examples that would paint a picture of e.g. how the different forms of motivation affect a person.
[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
Good references and biblography. Consider adding a few lines in your bibliography about what the material is about and who the source is.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mie Anker
[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
Good summary / abstract. Maybe a introduction to who Pink is and why him?
[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
I like you stay with Pink. It secures a common thread and very part build upon the other.
Some general ideas and thoughts about the argument:
- How much time is needed to implement this?
- Maybe studying theory X and Y could be interesting if you have some space left?
- In the section” 21st Century Challenges” – would something about the Maslow hierarchy of needs fit in?
In the Discussion / Limits – would this be possible to implement on the entire company or does Pink point out any limits? Maybe more about the tasks with a high level of routine.
[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
Overall very good. I have no issues reading and understanding the text. Some sentences need a bit of reformulating and love, like “Managers have to can deal with them by openly acknowledging…” but nothing major.
[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
Good and illustrative figure. Helps and does a better job than If the same thing should be explained in text. Remember to use to reference if you have one – or make it more clear?
[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
Very interesting reading! And highly relevant. No doubts.
[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
Very structured with mastery, purpose and autonomy. I think you very clearly communicate the perspective of Pink. It seems like Pink implies in figure 1 that no company would function with only 100% intrinsic motivated people, but it is not mentioned in the section of application.
[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
Great. Maybe a bit more text, explaining each reference.
