Peer Assessment of Group 16
Peer Assessment of Group 16
Evaluation by Group 11
1) Evaluators- Group 11, "Hot Wings"
2) Evaluees- Group 16, "Broken Beaker"
3) Visual Appeal- 8
Most of the sites were good, but rather plain.
4) Content- 10
There was lots of information
5) WWW suitability- 9
The abudance of info. makes it good for the web
6) Relevance to 210- 9
Plenty of facts that related to the chemical aspects of Prozac
7) Personal Gain- 9
I learned more than I ever wanted to know about Prozac.
TOTAL SCORE: 45
Evaluation by Group 12
1. group 12-Alkanetraz, 5 evaluators
2. group 16-broken beakers
3. 8
4. 8
5. 8
6. 9
7. 8
We felt there were too few visual sites for the amount of text present.
Evaluation by Group 13
Group #16--Broken Beakers
1) Visual Appeal--8
2) Content--10
3) WWW Suitability--9
4) Relevance to Chem210--9
5) Personal Gain--9
Total=45
Comments: Very important subject. Relevant, consise, informative.
Evaluation by Group 14
Evaluators- Group 14: Apocalypse
Evaluees- Group 16: Broken Beakers
Visual Appeal- 7
The sites provided seemed to be mostly text, but the images that
were available were useful and interesting.
Content- 8
The sites provided definitely conatined a lot of information. There
was not any real basic background information though.
Suitability- 7
The information on the sites didn't seem to be web-dependent, but
it was still much more accessible in this fashion.
Relevance- 7
Most of the sites didn't really show a direct realtion to chem 210.
Relevance could be found but you sort of had to search for it.
Personal Gain- 8
We learned a reasonable amount about prozac from this site.
Evaluation by Group 15
1) Group 15 The Unknowns
2) Group 16 Broken Beaker
3) Visual appeal of sites: 6
4) Content of site: 9
5) WWW suitability: 7
6) Relevance to chem 210: 7
7) Personal gain: 8
The visual appeal was quite low because better molecules are available.
The content was impressive, it contained a lot of good info. It was
relevant to the class to start with, but progressively got irrelevant.