Peer Assessment of Group 2 - Project 2
Peer Assessment of Group 2
Category |
Group 1 |
Group 3 |
Group 4 |
Group 5 |
Average |
Topic and Paper Selection
(0-15) |
14 |
12 |
15 |
15 |
14 |
Synposis and Identification of
Specific Problem (0-15) |
13 |
8 |
14.5 |
13 |
12.13 |
Spectroscopy Section (0-10) |
8 |
8 |
7 |
7 |
7.5 |
Format, Number and Types of
Questions (0-10) |
9 |
9 |
10 |
6 |
8.5 |
Quality of the Questions (0-20) |
18 |
16 |
20 |
16 |
17.5 |
Presentation & Defense (0-20) |
18 |
16 |
19 |
16 |
17.25 |
Overall Impression (0-10) |
9 |
8 |
10 |
7 |
8.5 |
TOTAL |
89 |
81 |
94.5 |
80 |
86.13 |
Evaluation by Group 1
>(A)Evaluators
>Group 1: Dissolved in Water Emma Teuten, Mike Lewis, & Paul Benny
>
>
>(B)Evaluees
>Group :JAW (Group 2)
>
>(C)Responses To Evaluation Categories
>(1)Topic and Paper Selection(0-15)...........................14/15
>(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem(0-15)....13/15
>(3)Spectroscopy Section(0-10).................................8/10
>(4)Format(0-10) ..............................................9/10
>(5)Quality of the Questions(0-20)............................18/20
> The questions were well formutaled and helped considerably in
>understanding the host-guest interactions the paper was concerned with.
>(6)Presentation & Defense(0-20)..............................18/20
> A great presentation. Well organised and explained very clearly.
>(7)Overall Impression(0-10)...................................9/10
>Total.......................................................89/100
Evaluation by Group 3
> (A) Group 3: Bible Study Class
>
> (B) Group 2: JAW
>
> (C)
>
> (1). Topic and Paper Selection: 12 Points
>
> (2). Synposis and Identification of Specific Problem: 12 Points
>
> (3). Spectroscopy Section: 8 Points
>
> (4). Format, Number and Types of Questions: 9 Points
>
> (5). Quality of the Questions: 16 Points
>
> (6). Presentation and Defense: 16 Points
>
> (7). Overall Impression: 8 Points
>
> TOTAL POINTS: 81 Points
Evaluation by Group 4
>b)Group 4,Asithe Abeywardhane/Wen Jian/Jianzheng Shi (Group 2!!!)
>c)(1)The selected problem met the criteria regarding usage of 2DNMR.15
> (2)The synopsis is brief and understandable.14.5
> (3)The spectra well scanned but the informations supplied were
>insufficient to answer the questions.7
> (4)All the criteria well met.10
> (5)Questions were clear and addressed to the central issue.They are
well
>understandable and clear.20
> (6)Presenters were confident and handled the questions
satisfactorily.19
> (7)The problem is suitable to assign for the class.10
> Total 94.5
>b)Group 5,ZhenCheng/Fang Hu/Lixin Chao
>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 2 JAW
C)
1) Topic and Paper Selection: 15
fulfilled all requirements
2) Synposis and Identification of Specific Problem: 13
why are these molecules important?
explain better why ROESY is better than NOESY
3) Spectroscopy Section: 7
spectra could be cleaner and smaller
captions on spectra and figures would be helpful
4) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 6
part II is 4 pages (not 3 as required)
question 1 should be SCL not ICR
5) Quality of Questions: 16
question 4 would have been better to ask for shift of a
single sugar (unclear which protons the question spoke of)
6) Presentation & Defense: 16
showing a table from Pretsch for question 2 would have
been helpful, nice introduction, maybe explain ROESY better
7) Overall Impression: 7
overall a good project, just need to understand ROESY
better