These pages are best viewed with a width of 7 inches
© 1997 Rainer Glaser. All rights reserved.
The University of Missouri at Columbia, Chemistry 416, Organic Spectroscopy, FS97

Collaborative Learning in Chemical Learning Communities Project #1: Instrumental Aspects of Spectroscopy

Peer Review Instructions

The evaluations of the Project #1 reports posted on the Chemistry 416 course site will be carried out by your peers in this course. The peer review will be carried out within the groups. Each group is required to evaluate the postings of all other groups. Each group must submit the completed evaluation forms to the instructor by electronic mail. Please write and e-mail separate evaluations for each of the groups you are evaluating. It is essential, however, that the evaluations are carried out in groups. This is an excellent exercise in consensus formation.

Your group can assign up to 100 points to each project report. The evaluations from all review groups will be averaged. Do take these evaluations seriously, you are affecting the grade of your fellow students. Be fair and be objective. You must be comfortable with your judgement and be able to stand by it and defend it in public. Your evalutions have to be made in writing and they will be made available on the web.

Your evaluation report should contain the following items. Please stick exactly to the format. Use the same item numbers.

(A) Group Number and Group Name of Evaluators

(B) Group Number and Group Name of Evaluees

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
In the next few items, you will be asked to assess various aspects of the project reports you are evaluating. For each item, your evaluation report should contain one line that contains the number of the item followed by the headline of the item in which you replaced the X by a number in the range indicated. Below each such line, you should very briefly justify your assignment. More detailed justifications should be given if the assigned score is either very high or very low.

(1) Problem Definition and Selection: X Points (0-15)
Has the problem been defined clearly and in a complete fashion? Is the described situation realistic or too far-fetched?

(2) Proposed Spectroscopic Solution: X Points (0-15)
Has the proposed solution to the analytical problem been clearly defined as far as the type of spectroscopy is concerned? Does the solution satisfy all of the needs described in the definition of the problem? Does the proposed spectrocopic analysis represent a good solution to the described analytical problem? Has a better method been overlooked?

(3) Market Screening: X Points (0-10)
Has the market been screened sufficiently so as to assure that no major players have been overlooked? Has the search strategy been described adequately? Has the list of at least five companies been generated?

(4) Class Selection: X Points (0-10)
Evaluate the selection of the class of the devices (low-end vs top-notch). Does the solution represent an "overkill" considering the problem? Will the proposed solution satisfy capacity requirements?

(5) Detailed Comparison of Alternative. Part I: Characteristics. X Points (0-10)
Have the three most decisive characteristics of the device been identified? Has a detailed and reasonable comparison been made of the alternative devices in these regards.

(6) Detailed Comparison of Alternative. Part II: Completeness of Quote. X Points (0-10)
Is the quote complete? Have all parts been considered (equipment, accessories, supplies). Do both quotes contain all the items?

(7) Detailed Comparison of Alternative. Part III: Costs. X Points (0-10)
Have the costs of all necessary items been quoted? Has the origin of the quote been specified? Has the period been specified for which this quote remains valid?

(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. X Points (0-10)
Has a decision been made. Has this decision been reached after a reasonable and balanced discussion?

(9) Overall Impression. X Points (0-10)
If this proposal would have been given to you for final approval, would you have acted on it (most points), asked for minor or major revision, or rejected it (no points).

Relevant Dates and Deadlines

Submission of Evaluations. Friday, October 17, 1997. You have one week to get the evaluations in after the postings are complete.