Talk:Structuration Theory
From Geography
(Created page with "Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient) 1. Relevance: 9: The relevance of this page for the course spatial action is very high. Structures are ver...") |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
3. well-researched: 8: The research is done OK. The application of the APA guidlines is complete and verifiable. It's a good thing that there is a reference immidiately after explaining something. But about one source, Werlen, is the application overcomplete, because Werlen is mentioned two times in the heading ''references''. Both with an other page number, but then it's enough to mention this source only one time. | 3. well-researched: 8: The research is done OK. The application of the APA guidlines is complete and verifiable. It's a good thing that there is a reference immidiately after explaining something. But about one source, Werlen, is the application overcomplete, because Werlen is mentioned two times in the heading ''references''. Both with an other page number, but then it's enough to mention this source only one time. | ||
| - | 4. Broad in its coverage: 6: It is focused and to the point, and very clear that there used different headings. Only in the beginning, by explaining about this theory, it's not very clear what includes this theory. There is used a illustration, and this illustration should be the basis for the explanation, but that illustration with its concepts, isn't used. | + | 4. Broad in its coverage: 6: It is focused and to the point, and very clear that there used different headings. Only in the beginning, by explaining about this theory, it's not very clear what includes this theory. There is used a illustration, and this illustration should be the basis for the explanation, but that illustration with its concepts (structure, agent, action), isn't used. |
5. Neutral: 9: The text is written neutral. There is no criticizing performed by the authors. | 5. Neutral: 9: The text is written neutral. There is no criticizing performed by the authors. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
6. Stable: 7: The page is stable, and only enhanced by tow people. | 6. Stable: 7: The page is stable, and only enhanced by tow people. | ||
| - | 7. Well-structured: | + | 7. Well-structured: 8: The page is very well structured because of the hierarchial system of headings. That makes it very clear. Only there are missing some links: a link to the concept of structure, a link to the concept of agency. |
| - | 8. Illustrated: 5: As stated before, there is an illustration in the beginning of the first heading. There are important concepts in this illustraton, but this concepts are not used in the text, so that's a recommendation. Now the illustration is not relevant, while it can be the basis for the explanation of the theory. | + | 8. Illustrated: 5: As stated before, there is an illustration in the beginning of the first heading. There are important concepts in this illustraton (structure, agent, action), but this concepts are not used in the text, so that's a recommendation. Now the illustration is not relevant, while it can be the basis for the explanation of the theory. |
9. Length: 9: The length of the page is good, it stays to the point, which makes it easy to read. | 9. Length: 9: The length of the page is good, it stays to the point, which makes it easy to read. | ||
''Evaluated by Marleen Revenberg, 23 October 2012'' | ''Evaluated by Marleen Revenberg, 23 October 2012'' | ||
Latest revision as of 16:05, 23 October 2012
Rating (from 0-10, 10 being the highest, and 6 being just sufficient)
1. Relevance: 9: The relevance of this page for the course spatial action is very high. Structures are very important in this course, so also the theory which belongs to structure is important.
2. Well-written: 8: The page is mostly well-written, the writers have used correct English. Further there are used some headings to explain the main topics, which makes the page very clear.
3. well-researched: 8: The research is done OK. The application of the APA guidlines is complete and verifiable. It's a good thing that there is a reference immidiately after explaining something. But about one source, Werlen, is the application overcomplete, because Werlen is mentioned two times in the heading references. Both with an other page number, but then it's enough to mention this source only one time.
4. Broad in its coverage: 6: It is focused and to the point, and very clear that there used different headings. Only in the beginning, by explaining about this theory, it's not very clear what includes this theory. There is used a illustration, and this illustration should be the basis for the explanation, but that illustration with its concepts (structure, agent, action), isn't used.
5. Neutral: 9: The text is written neutral. There is no criticizing performed by the authors.
6. Stable: 7: The page is stable, and only enhanced by tow people.
7. Well-structured: 8: The page is very well structured because of the hierarchial system of headings. That makes it very clear. Only there are missing some links: a link to the concept of structure, a link to the concept of agency.
8. Illustrated: 5: As stated before, there is an illustration in the beginning of the first heading. There are important concepts in this illustraton (structure, agent, action), but this concepts are not used in the text, so that's a recommendation. Now the illustration is not relevant, while it can be the basis for the explanation of the theory.
9. Length: 9: The length of the page is good, it stays to the point, which makes it easy to read.
Evaluated by Marleen Revenberg, 23 October 2012
