Peer Assessment of Group 3 - Project 2
Peer Assessment of Group 3
| Category |
Group 1 |
Group 2 |
Group 4 |
Group 5 |
Average |
| Topic and Paper Selection
(0-15) |
14 |
13 |
15 |
15 |
14.25 |
| Synposis and Identification of
Specific Problem (0-15) |
14 |
12 |
15 |
11 |
13 |
| Spectroscopy Section (0-10) |
8 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
6.75 |
| Format, Number and Types of
Questions (0-10) |
9 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
7.75 |
| Quality of the Questions (0-20) |
15 |
17 |
17.5 |
14 |
15.88 |
| Presentation & Defense (0-20) |
14 |
16 |
17.5 |
14 |
15.38 |
| Overall Impression (0-10) |
9 |
9 |
10 |
7 |
8.75 |
| TOTAL |
83 |
82 |
88 |
74 |
81.75 |
Evaluation by Group 1
>(A)Evaluators
>Group 1: Dissolved in Water Emma Teuten, Mike Lewis, & Paul Benny
>
>
>(B)Evaluees
>Group :Bible Study Class (group 3)
>
>(C)Responses To Evaluation Categories
>(1)Topic and Paper Selection(0-15)..........................14/15
>(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem(0-15)...14/15
>(3)Spectroscopy Section(0-10)................................8/10
>(4)Format(0-10)..............................................9/10
>(5)Quality of the Questions(0-20)...........................15/20
> Qu. 2 was incredibly difficult to answer using the diagram provided.
The
>phosphorus atom was not very clear from that angle, making it complicated
>to see what it was coupling with. Qu. 5 confused us, and we didn't think
>it was well answered in the presentation.
>(6)Presentation & Defense(0-20).............................14/20
> Qu. 5 was not explained well. Over all the presentation was a little
>confusing. Organisation could have been improved.
>(7)Overall Impression(0-10)..................................9/10
> Fantastic web page!
>
>Total.......................................................83/100
Evaluation by Group 2
(A) Evaluators
Group 2: JAW Asitha, Wen and Jianzheng
(B) Evaluee
Group 3 Bible Study Class
(C) Responses To Evaluation Categories
(1) Topic and Paper Selection 13
It meet the required criteria as far as 2D NMR
(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem 12
(3) Spectroscopy Section 7
(4) Format 8
(5) Quality of the Questions 17
Question 1 seems not necessary
(6)Presentation & Defense 16
Not all people involved.
(7)Overall Impression 9
Evaluation by Group 4
b)Group 5,ZhenCheng/Fang Hu/Lixin Chao (GROUP 3!!)
c)(1)The selected problem met the required criteria.15
(2)The synopsis was brief and dealt well.15
(3)The spectra could have been scanned better and some more informations
needed for the questions.6
(4)Questions are not properly specified.7
(5)The questions are far fetched and contains fair amount of marginal
details.17.5
(6)The presentation is ok.17.5
(7)The problem can be assigned to the class.10.
Total 88
From
the gang of three
Sandeep Rayat
Dan Philips
Subhabrata Sen
Evaluation by Group 5
A) Group 5 Alcohol Protecting Group
B) Group 3 Bible Study Class
C)
1) Topic and Paper Selection: 15
fulfilled all requirements
2) Synposis and Identification of Specific Problem: 11
some clarification of the problem is needed
3) Spectroscopy Section: 6
spectra could be cleaner
should have edited out parts B, D, & E from the spectra to
avoid confusion.
nice job on the molecule graphic
4) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 7
when considering the additional links, the page length is
exceeded
5) Quality of Questions: 14
questions were a little on the easy side
questions 2,3,4 are basically the same question
6) Presentation & Defense: 14
pictures and introduction/questions could have been put on
the same overhead to avoid the distracting flipping of
transparencies explanations were a little incomplete
7) Overall Impression: 7
interpretation of spectra questions were good and related
to what has been done in class