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