Peer Assessment of Group 25
C A T E G O R Y G16 G17 G18 G19 G20 Average
Topic Selection
(0-20)
20 20 20 20 20 20
Newspaper and Article Selection
(0-10)
10 10 9 10 8 9.4
Quality of Editorial Comments
(0-10)
8 9 8 7 9 8.2
Organic Chemistry Content
(0-10)
9 5 7 7 7 7
Selection and Quality of the Links 
(0-20)
19 14 17 13 17 16
Format, Number and Types of Questions
(0-10)
7 10 9 10 10 9.2
Quality of the Questions
(0-10)
6 10 8 9 9 8.4
Overall Impression 
(0-10)
8 8 9 8 8 8.2
TOTAL 88 86 87 84 88 86.6

 
 

Evaluation by Group 16

Subject:  group 25 by group 16
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 20:56:17 PDT

1) 20/20	good
2) 10/10
3)  8/10
4)  9/10
5) 19/20   article link has chem box form lab (the password thing comes     
     	up)- confusing
6)  7/20    don't have 5 different types
7)  6/10	  not chem related
8)  8/10	  good, questions need work
total: 88/100

 
 

Evaluation by Group 17

(A) Group 17 AAA

(B) Group 25 The Porkchop Express

(C)

1.  20/20  Great topic.  We like drugs, sex and gambling!

2.  10/10  Great source.  Article was very well written.  High point for
the group.

3.  9/10  The editorial comments were well written.  It was related to
the article and helped clarify the article.

4.  5/10  As the famous line says, "Where's the chemistry?"  The topic
was great and had the potential to work very well with organic
chemistry, but they did not take advantage of it.  

5.  14/20  Two of the links don't work.  The link titled norepinephrine
seemed to be vague.  We were not sure as to what we should be looking
at.  

6.  10/10  Fits the criteria.

7.  10/10  Great questions.  Fit the topic and actually had chemistry in
them.  Great job.  

8.  8/10  The topic was great, the article was superb, but the editorial
comments didn't relate the article to chemistry.  Is this a chemistry
class or what?  Prentice Hall could use the article and the questions
for something other than a chemistry article.  

 
 

Evaluation by Group 18

(A) Group 18:  Polyesters
(B) Group 25: Porkchop Express
(C) Evaluations

1. Topic selection - 20
Good topic selection, the connection to chemistry is clear.  

2. Newspaper and article selection -9
The article is informative, well written and from a popular paper.

3. Quality of editorial comments - 8
The editorial comments were too short; they could have gone into more
detail.  For the most part, the editorial comments restate the facts of
the article rather than supplement it. 

4. Organic chemistry content-7
There is not enough discussion of organic chemistry.

5. Selection and quality of links-17
The links were okay, but too few.  The project needs more links with a
wider variety of topics, and two links did not work.

6. Format, number and types of questions-9
There is only one science question, the rest are philosophical.  One
link wasn't working.

7. Quality of questions-8
More chemistry-related questions are needed.  The last question could
have been made more open to interpretation.  

8. Overall impression -9
Overall, good job, but the project needs to delve deeper into organic
chemistry.

TOTAL POINTS: 87

 
 

Evaluation by Group 19

A) Group 19- Harris Gang

B) Group 25-The Porkchop Express

C)Evalutions

1. 20/20  Wonderful topic.  Very interesting and applicable to real-life

2. 10/10  The article was well written, easy to follow, and from a
respectable source.

3.  7/10  The editorial comments were well written and helped to explain
the article.  However, the comments could have focused more on why the
drugs work, and tried to give explanations for the treatment success of
certain drugs.  Also, the editorial comments section seemed a bit short
to fully explain the topic.

4. 7/10  The editorial comments were not really focused on explaining
the chemistry of addiction.  They were more focused on displaying
structures.  Unfortunately, these structures were often imbedded in
links that were not very useful.  Structure is just one aspect of
chemistry.  The project could be improved by having more emphasis on
other (more interesting) aspects of drug addiction and treatment, and by
having better links to display structure.

5. 13/20  Some of the links were very good, and very informative.
Unfortunately, two links didn't work, and one link (norepinephrine) was
confusing as to what you should look at.

6. 10/10  The five questions fit into the required areas 

7.  9/10  The questions were very chemistry-oriented, and required some
outside thought.  The final question was a little weak, because it
didn't really touch on the societal problem of gambling.

8.  8/10  The project had a lot of strengths, including a great topic,
an interesting article, and good questions.  The weaknesses of the
project were the relationship to chemistry, the editorial comments, and
the links.  Overall, the project was quite good.  Although we wouldn't
recommend Prentice Hall publish the project, it is definitely a
candidate for classroom discussion.

Total Score 84

 
 

Evaluation by Group 20

(A) Group 20: The Wolfepack
(B) Group 25: The Porkchop Express
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Topic Selection: 20/20 points
The topic of addiction and the brain chemicals involved is extremely
interesting and will appeal to a broad segment of the audience.  There is
a lot of current research and debate about this topic, so their editorial
was very timely and up-to-date.  The various brain chemicals discussed are
strongly related to organic chemistry, as shown by their ability to
reference three chapters in Wade's book.
(2) Newspaper and Article Selection: 8/10 points
For the most part, the articles were published recently, and in a quality
newspaper or journal.  However, the link to norepinephrine was the
about.com website, which did not seem to be the best site as far as
scientific reliability is concerned.  It was difficult to find relevant
information on that site, especially when compared to the sites that the
other hormones were linked to.  In addition, there was not a huge variety
of sites selected - they were all American organizations, researchers, or
magazine articles.
(3) Quality of the Editorial Comments: 9/10 points
The editorial was shorter than those of most other groups were.  It was
well written grammatically, and well organized.  Perhaps if it had been a
little longer, the group could have discussed why their topic was
particularly related to organic chemistry (i.e. the mechanism of hormone
activity during an addictive action).
(4) Organic Chemistry Content: 7/10 points
The group was not very explicit in explaining how and why their topic was
related to organic chemistry.  The linked references were very specific,
and it was difficult to find general information about the chemistry
behind the hormones.  A link to a general reference about hormones and
their chemistry, or a discussion in the editorial, would have been
helpful.
(5) Selection and Quality of the Links: 17/20 points
The links were interesting, but very specific - the link to research sites
or the about.com site are probably not particularly stable.  However, the
inclusion of the Gamblers Anonymous link was very appropriate and helpful.
(6) Format, Number, and Types of Questions: 10/10 points
There were five questions, as requested, and they cover a variety of
issues.
(7) Quality of Questions: 9/10 points
The questions were good, and not especially difficult.  However, Question
4 regarding "recent research" was somewhat vague, so perhaps a little more
focus to that question would be helpful.
(8) Overall Impression: 8/10
This could be a useful assignment, with some minor adjustments and a
little more explanation of chemistry in the editorial (or a link to a more
helpful page).

Total: 88/100