Home > musings > Overview of the task 3: comparison of descriptions of creating a study plan

Overview of the task 3: comparison of descriptions of creating a study plan

It seems that this task turned out to be a more challenging one as we had expected. The quality of the comparisons varied quite a bit, from a few line superficial story to very thorough comparison studies.

A good comparison needs some effort and time. The purpose of the task 3 was to compare individual descriptions of the activity (creating a study plan) to find meaningful similarities and differences. We had offered some hints and guiding questions for what to look at while carrying out your comparisons, however, some of you had problems to create a “comparison framework” (aspects/characteristics that are taken into account while comparing).

Whenever we want to compare something, we should think of the purpose of comparison, what aspects we are going to compare and how we are going to structure our comparisons. In our case the purpose was to find out similarities and differences of these descriptions. What aspects one is going to compare (what is it you are comparing and in comparison to what) and how to structure the comparisons (for instance presenting each description according to the list of comparison aspects or take the comparison aspects and relate them to the chosen descriptions) were left to you. In my opinion in many cases the answers to these questions were presented on a rather superficial level if at all.

It stuck my eye that some of you preferred to compare how the actual Weblog posts were done (for example the focus on what tools were used to create schemes), but not the items in the Weblog posts. I noticed that some of you preferred to talk about your personal impressions and evaluations (about the ease of reading schemes or whether it was interesting to read or not) of the actual Weblog posts.  Or on the other hand, a rather common approach was to make a summary or a short overview of others’ descriptions and left the actual comparison process to the reader. These comparisons lacked a common framework. Our purpose was to focus on a human activity description i.e. how one describes his activity, what vocabulary he uses, what aspects he considers important for describing it, etc.

Not to sound too negative and critical (one rather tends to point out deficiencies :)) I would like to point out some Weblog posts as interesting attempts to provide various aspects for a basis for carrying out comparisons of descriptions: for instance Tatjana, Raul, Argo, Gert, Jakob and many others.

To conclude it was nice to see that you had chosen different descriptions for your comparison studies, herewith, at some point everybody’s post was taken into account for a comparison.

This task provided us an opportunity to get acquainted with different descriptions of a particular human activity, which allows us to move on with our journey and make some generalisations based on the previous tasks.

Thank you for your contribution!

Categories: musings
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: