Peer Assessment of Group 1
Peer Assessment of Group 1
| Category |
Group 2 |
Group 3 |
Group 4 |
Group 5 |
Average |
| Topic & Paper Selection
(0-15) |
13 |
15 |
15 |
13.5 |
14.125 |
| Synopsis & Identification of
Specific Problem (0-15) |
12 |
13 |
13 |
14 |
13 |
| Computational Section (0-10) |
7 |
8 |
9 |
7 |
7.75 |
| Format, Number and Types of Questions
(0-10) |
8 |
10 |
10 |
8 |
9 |
| Quality of the Questions (0-10) |
17 |
16 |
18 |
16.5 |
67.5 |
| Presentation & Defense (0-20) |
18 |
20 |
18 |
17 |
18.25 |
| Overall Impression (0-10) |
9 |
8 |
9 |
9 |
8.75 |
| TOTAL |
84 |
90 |
92 |
85 |
87.75 |
Evaluation by Group 2
Subject: peer evaluation of group 1 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: Focking Computational Chemistry
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Topic and Paper Selection: 13
The paper was published in a top-notch research journal in the last 3
years
(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 12
Synopsis is brief.
(3) Computational Section: 7
The information given is not sufficient to answer the questions.
(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 8
good
(5) Quality of the Questions: 17
good
(6) Presentation & Defense: 18
excellent
(7) Overall Impression. 8
very nice
Evaluation by Group 3
The Hueckelberries (3)
The Focking Computational Chemists (1)
(1) Topic and Paper Selection: 15
This was a very good and interesting paper.
(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 13
Figures and tables not quite clear.
(3) Computational Section: 8
Could have made Tables and Figures correspond better.
(4) Format, number, types of questions: 10
Criteria met.
(5) Quality of Questions: 16
We did not know what FMO was. Questions were not quite clear to
us.
(6) Presentation and Defense: 20
Well done guys!
(7) Overall Impression: 8
General ideas were clear, but the computational details were hard
for us to understand. This was a good topic.
Total score: 90
Bruce Flint
237 Chemistry Bldg.
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, MO 65211
Evaluation by Group 4
Subject: group 4 eval of group 1
A. Group 4, the Hamiltonophiles
B. Group 1, the Fock-ing Computational Chemists
C.
1. 15
Very interesting topic.
2. 13
Concise and very clear.
3. 9
Good.
4. 10
5. 18
Question 5 seems to be a little too difficult, the rest are
good.
6. 18
7. 9
Total = 92
Evaluation by Group 5
Subject: Peer evaluation of group 1 by group 5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Section 1: 13.5/15
Section 2: 14/15
Showed a good, clear understanding of the paper.
Section 3: 7/10
A little more data may have helped with the questions, particularly
question 3
Section 4: 8/10
Section 5: 16.5/20
Question 5 was really quite difficult for us, with the limited
computational chemistry background we have. We weren't even sure how to go
about beginning to find a good answer for this question
Section 6: 17/20
Mike and Graeme obviously had a very clear idea of what they were
talking about, as they should have, it being thier feild. However, they
overheads used each had too much information to both read and listen to
the points being made. Despite this, the paper became clearer after thier
presentation.
Section 7: 9/10
Interesing subject, with good, helpful questions (although qu. 5 could
be revised....)