Peer Assessment of Group 5 - Project 2
Peer Assessment of Group 5
| Category |
Group 1 |
Group 2 |
Group 3 |
Group 4 |
Average |
| Topic and Paper Selection
(0-15) |
13 |
13 |
12 |
15 |
13.25 |
| Synposis and Identification of
Specific Problem (0-15) |
14 |
12 |
12 |
13.5 |
12.875 |
| Spectroscopy Section (0-10) |
8 |
8 |
6 |
9 |
7.75 |
| Format, Number and Types of
Questions (0-10) |
9 |
8 |
8 |
9 |
8.5 |
| Quality of the Questions (0-20) |
17 |
15 |
13 |
17.5 |
15.625 |
| Presentation & Defense (0-20) |
12 |
15 |
14 |
19 |
15 |
| Overall Impression (0-10) |
7 |
8 |
8 |
10 |
8.25 |
| TOTAL |
81 |
79 |
73 |
93 |
81.5 |
Evaluation by Group 1
(A)Evaluators
Group 1: Dissolved in Water Emma Teuten, Mike Lewis, & Paul Benny
(B)Evaluees
Group 5:Alcohol Protecting Group
(C)Responses To Evaluation Categories
(1)Topic and Paper Selection(0-15).............................13/14
(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)..............................17/20
Although it was part of the paper you were looking at, cross relaxation
was not discussed in class. You should have given us at least a little
information about it in order to expect us to answer a question about it.
(6)Presentation & Defense(0-20)................................12/20
The presentation was too long- double the length we were asked for. The
parts that appeared to be photocopied directly from a book did not make a
particularly interesting talk- it's easier to keep your audience
captivated if you present your information on your overheads in point
form. Recalling information from memory, rather than reading more or less
directly from your overheads gives a better impression of understanding
your subject matter. More specificly, a problem we had with the way qu. 1
was answered, was that it assumed for simplicity that the ring was mono
substituted- taking into consideration the methyl substituant, and not the
SO2R, which effects the proton chemical shifts more than the methyl group.
(7)Overall Impression(0-10)....................................7/10
Total........................................................81/100
Evaluation by Group 2
(A) Evaluators
Group 2: JAW Asitha, Wen and Jianzheng
(B) Evaluee
Group 5:Alcohol Protecting Group
(C)Responses To Evaluation Categories
(1)Topic and Paper Selection 13
Fast measurement is an important issue
(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem 12
(3)Spectroscopy Section 8
The spectra were scanned well and edited carefully
(4)Format 8
(5)Quality of the Questions 15
(6)Presentation & Defense 15
Presentation over time
(7)Overall Impression 8
Evaluation by Group 3
> (A) Group 3: Bible Study Class
>
> (B) Group 5: Alcohol Protecting Group
>
> (C)
>
> (1). Topic and Paper Selection: 12 Points
>
> (2). Synposis and Identification of Specific Problem: 12 Points
>
> (3). Spectroscopy Section: 6 Points
>
> (4). Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8 Points
>
> (5). Quality of the Questions: 13 Points
>
> (6). Presentation and Defense: 14 Points
>
> (7). Overall Impression: 8 Points
>
> TOTAL POINTS: 73 Points
Evaluation by Group 4
b)Group 2,Tarra Fuchs/Dave Alvarez/Pat Kirchhoeffer. (GROUP 5!!!)
c)(1)Topic and paper selection was fine.15
(2)Synopsis and identification of problem is ok.13.5
(3)Spectroscopy section .9
(4)Well formatted and numbered and typed.9
(5)Quality of questions were ok.17.5
(6)Presentaion was fine.19
(7)This can be assigned to the class.10
Total 93