Peer Assessment of Group 3
Peer Assessment of Group 3
| Category |
Group 1 |
Group 2 |
Group 4 |
Group 5 |
Average |
| Topic & Paper Selection
(0-15) |
13 |
13 |
15 |
13 |
13.5 |
| Synopsis & Identification of
Specific Problem (0-15) |
14 |
12 |
11 |
11.5 |
12.125 |
| Computational Section (0-10) |
9 |
6 |
7 |
9 |
7.75 |
| Format, Number and Types of Questions
(0-10) |
9 |
9 |
10 |
7.5 |
8.875 |
| Quality of the Questions (0-10) |
15 |
14 |
16 |
13 |
14.5 |
| Presentation & Defense (0-20) |
17 |
17 |
15 |
17.5 |
16.625 |
| Overall Impression (0-10) |
8 |
6 |
8 |
6.5 |
7.125 |
| TOTAL |
85 |
80 |
82 |
78 |
81.25 |
Evaluation by Group 1
Subject: Group 1 eval of Group 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
(A) Evaluating Unit: Group 1
(B) Evaluation of Group 3
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Topic and Paper Selection: 13 Points (0-15)
(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 14 Points (0-15)
Excellent synopsis. The problems and results were clearly defined.
(3) Computational Section: 9 Points (0-10)
Computational detail was good and the data given was pertinent.
(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 9 Points (0-10)
(5) Quality of the Questions: 15 Points (0-20)
Question 1 is open to debate in the literature, therefore probably not
suitable. Question 5 does not have a concrete answer.
(6) Presentation & Defense: 17 Points (0-20)
Explanation of CASSCF could have been included. UHF calculations were not
mentioned. Good use of blackboard along with overheads.
(7) Overall Impression. 8 Points (0-10)
Total 85
Evaluation by Group 2
Subject: peer evaluation of group3 by group 2
MIME-Version: 1.0
(A) Unit Number and Unit Name of Evaluating Unit
Group 2: Nitrosamine
(B) Unit Number and Unit Name of Evaluated Unit
Group 1: The Hueckelberries
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Topic and Paper Selection: 13
good
(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 12
Synopsis is brief.
(3) Computational Section: 6
The information given is not sufficient to answer the questions.
(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 9
good
(5) Quality of the Questions: 14
Some questions are too broad and hard to answer
(6) Presentation & Defense: 17
good
(7) Overall Impression. 6
some are not fitful the assignment. Some answers given by the group are
not clear .
Evaluation by Group 4
Subject: group 4 evl of group 3
A. Group 4, the Hamiltonophiles
B. Group 3, the Hueckelberries
C.
1. 15
Very interesting topic.
2. 11
Concise synopsis.
3. 7
Bad quality of pictures.
4. 10
5. 16
Question 1 seems a little ambiguous, the rest are good.
6. 15
7. 8
Total = 82
Evaluation by Group 5
Subject: Peer evaluation of group 3 by group 5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Section 1: 13/15
Section 2: 11.5/15
The synopsis was too brief. Just one more sentence about the goal of
the paper would have made things a lot more clear
Section 3: 9/10
Good. Descriptive and very detailed
Section 4: 7.5/10
Section 5: 13/20
Some of the questions were way too difficult for us. Even after reading
the origional paper, the answers to questions 2, 4 and 5 still eluded us.
Section 6: 17.5/20
Bruce's use of the chalk board was very effective, making the
dimerisation mechanisms a lot more understandable than reading about them
Section 7: 6.5/10
For this to be used as a question set for the class, we would like to
see the questions revised
Total : 78/100