Talk:Conceptual levels of competence
(→Feedback on Abstract) |
|||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===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=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===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=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===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=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===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=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===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=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===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=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | ''Answer | + | 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
