Skip to main content Skip to navigation

Feedback on Construal Comprehension Exercise

There were two parts to my assessment - a team mark for the overall achievement, and an individual mark for your presentation and associated resources. I awarded 5 marks for each, and your overall mark is out of 10 (counting 10% towards your final mark for CS405).

Team performance

I evaluated your team performance on the basis of your overall coverage of the Pjawns construal comprehension agenda, and I was very pleased with this. I didn't necessarily expect you to take the five topics I had drawn attention to as prescribing your five individual roles, but this seemed to work out quite well. My only reservation was that there was not as much explicit comparison of the two construals as I would have liked and little attempt to cross-reference each other's work, which I think would have added value overall to your individual contributions. I have awarded a team mark of 4 out of 5.

Your individual marks will be distributed by email. I have awarded marks under the following headings:

  1. Knowledge of EDEN [2]
  2. Use of the EMPE [2]
  3. Illustration of the DMT [1]
  4. Delivery of presentation [1]
  5. Content of presentation/handout [2]
  6. Quality of critique of EM and of the construals [2]

The marks in brackets give a score out of 10 that I have halved and added to the team score.

The technical achievement as represented in categories 1, 2 and 3 was of a very good standard. I particularly appreciated effective use of the execute-EDEN-code feature of the EMPE to demonstrate interesting features and possibilities. Making redefinitions (as in 'is' rather than '=') in this way was particularly welcome. Including diagrams within the presentation was a good idea in principle, but did reveal some of the limitations of the EMPE (and possibly of projection from the EMPE). There was some excellent use of the DMT that was especially effective when it was focused on showing how a few key observables were related by dependency (and explaining respects in which this was / was not appropriate).

I didn't give too much weight to category 4 - the quality of your delivery, as you had so little time and I was more interested in what you had to say. More confident and slower delivery would have been welcome on times.

The content of the presentations (category 5) was good and informative. I much appreciated the inventory of observables and dependencies that you had been able to unearth and interpret. Everybody contributed to this in an interesting way. More emphasis on linking this interpretation to interaction with the construal would sometimes have been welcome - after all, this is what is distinctive about adopting an EM stance.

The critique of the construals from an EM perspective (category 6) was not well-represented in many presentations. I would have liked to see more explicit attention given to what EM involves and to what extent the construals realise and deviate from EM principles.

Note that the marks awarded for this exercise reward you primarily for technical achievement. When it comes to the examination, you will need to pay more attention to communication and critique from an EM perspective. To get an idea of what mark you might otherwise expect for your exam answers you should look at the mark out of 5 that I have awarded for the last three categories above: delivery, content and critique.