© 1999-2002 REG. All rights reserved.
The University of Missouri at Columbia, Chemistry 210, Organic Chemistry I, WS02

Collaborative Learning
and Peer Review
in Chemical Learning Communities

Creation of an Item of
"Chemistry is in the News"

Group Assignments for Peer Evaluations

Group Numbers refer to the database group numbers (and not the group numbers shown on the course web site).

Inter-State Peer Review between MU and UCD
Groups 1 - 13 are at MU           Groups 14 - 26 are at UCD
Each of Groups   1 -  4 (4)       evaluates each of Groups 14 - 17 (4)
Each of Groups   5 -  7 (3)       evaluates each of Groups 18 - 20 (3)
Each of Groups   8 - 10 (3)       evaluates each of Groups 21 - 23 (3)
Each of Groups  11 - 13 (3)       evaluates each of Groups 24 - 26 (3)
Each of Groups  14 - 17 (4)       evaluates each of Groups 11 - 13 (3)
Each of Groups  18 - 20 (3)       evaluates each of Groups  8 - 10 (3)
Each of Groups  21 - 23 (3)       evaluates each of Groups  5 -  7 (3)
Each of Groups  24 - 26 (3)       evaluates each of Groups  1 -  4 (4)

In-Class Peer Review at MU
Note that there is no groups 10, 21 and 26.
Each of Groups   1 -  3 (3)       evaluates each of Groups   4 -  6 (3)
Each of Groups   4 -  6 (3)       evaluates each of Groups   7 -  9 (3)
Each of Groups   7 -  9 (3)       evaluates each of Groups  11 - 13 (3)
Each of Groups  11 - 13 (3)       evaluates each of Groups  14 - 16 (3)
Each of Groups  14 - 16 (3)       evaluates each of Groups  17 - 19 (3)
Each of Groups  17 - 19 (3)       evaluates each of Groups 20,22,23 (3)
Each of Groups 20,22,23 (3)       evaluates each of Groups 24,25,27 (3) 
Each of Groups 24,25,27 (3)       evaluates each of Groups  28 - 30 (3)
Each of Groups  28 - 30 (3)       evaluates each of Groups   1 -  3 (3)

The basic idea is that most groups are reviewed by 3 other groups --- the averaging will take the edge of the individual judgements --- and that groups never evaluate their own evaluators --- revenche is a bad strategy and it is not possible in our scheme. The simplest way to have this accomplished involves the above schemes. There is an exception in the inter-state peer review matchup in that some sections of 4 groups either benefit from four reviews and/or also evaluate 4 groups. There is another exception in that group 25 - 27 of the MU in-class groups are reviewed only by two groups. If these groups 25 - 27 require review by three groups, then they can requesta third review by the "Staff Group" (Dr. Glaser and his TAs).

The more everybody browses all of the entries, the better the quality of the grading. Evaluations of small subsets without having a view of the overall quality inadvertantly distort the evaluation.

Peer Review Instructions

The evaluations of the Collaborative Semester Projects will be carried out by your peers after the items have been posted on the Chemistry 216 Projects Web Site. The peer review will be carried out by groups. Each group is required to evaluate the projects of three other groups.

Complete evaluations need to be submitted to the instructor by email. Separate emails should be used for each evaluation made by each group. The subject line should read "Peer evaluation of group X by group Y".

Your group can assign up to 100 points to a project. The evaluations from all peer evaluations will be averaged. Do take these evaluations seriously, you are affecting the grade of your fellow students. Try to be fair and objective. You must be comfortable with your judgment and be able to stand by it and defend it in public. Your evaluations have to be made in writing and they will be made public on the web.

Your evaluation report should contain the following items. Please stick exactly to the format. Use the same item numbers.

(A) Group Number and Group Name of Evaluating Unit

(B) Group Number and Group Name of Evaluated Unit

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
In the next few items, you will be asked to assess various aspects of the problem assignments generated by the individiual or group you are evaluating. You will also be asked to evaluate the presentation and defense part of the project. For each item, your peer-evaluation report should contain one line that contains the number of the item followed by the headline of the item in which you replaced the X by a number in the range indicated. Below each such line, you should very briefly justify your assignment. More detailed justifications should be given if the assigned score is either very high or very low.

(1) Topic Selection: X Points (0-20)
Is the selected topic of interest to a broad segments of the audience? Is there a strong relation of the topic to chemistry and organic chemistry in particular?

(2) Newspaper and Article Selection: X Points (0-10)
Was the newspaper article published in a high quality newspaper? Did the author seem qualified to write on the science? Was the article published wiithin the past one year (after 1/1/98 is acceptable)? Is the article too long? Is the article exciting?

(3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: X Points (0-10)
Do the editorial comments help to place the article in the greater context? Do the comments help to crytallize the key issues in a clear and authoritative manner? Is the editorial written in good English (grammar and style) and in a well organized fashion (appropriate number of paragraphs of appropriate lengths and so on).

(4) Organic Chemistry Content: X Points (0-10)
Was the key organic chemical issue made clear? Was sufficient background provided to understand the chemistry? Have important compounds been described and characterized sufficiently. Is the pertinent reference section complete? If not, what additional references should be given?

(5) Selection and Quality of the Links: X Points (0-20)
This is a key issue! Note that there are 20 points for this criterium. Do the links satisfy the requirements for relevance, quality and stability? Did you yourself learn ffrom these links? Are the links embedded well into the editorial comments. Was it clear what the function of the link was and why it was chosen to be included in the editorial comments?

(6) Format, Number and Types of Questions: X Points (0-10)
Does the problem contain 5 questions as requested? Do the questions vary as far as the categories of the questions are concerned. Is the last question a PSP question?

(7) Quality of the Questions: X Points (0-10)
Are the questions good ones or are they bizarre and far-fetched? Do the questions address central issues or marginal details? Are the questions written in an understandable and clear fashion? Is it possible to work the problems in a reasonable time?

(8) Overall Impression. X Points (0-10)
If you were the instructor of Chemistry 212, would you consider this problem set fit for publication by Prentice Hall (most points), a useful assignment after minor or major adjustments, or unfit for distribution and general classroom use (no points)?

Relevant Dates and Deadlines

Submission of Peer-Evaluations. By midnight on Tuesday, May 7, 2002.

Absolument mon ami, l'excellence est une habitude.