Peer Assessment of Group 26
C A T E G O R Y G21 G22 G23 G24 G25 Average
Topic Selection
(0-20)
19 19 17 18 (17) 19 18.4
Newspaper and Article Selection
(0-10)
10 9 7 7 8 8.2
Quality of Editorial Comments
(0-10)
9 7 7 8 8 7.8
Organic Chemistry Content
(0-10)
10 7 10 8 (7) 10 9
Selection and Quality of the Links 
(0-20)
16 16 15 16 (15) 18 16.2
Format, Number and Types of Questions
(0-10)
8 7 7 10 (8) 9 8.2
Quality of the Questions
(0-10)
7 8 8 7 8 7.6
Overall Impression 
(0-10)
8 8 8 8 (7) 8 8
TOTAL 87 81 79 82 88 83.4

 
 

Evaluation by Group 21

A) Group 21-The Chemettes
B) Group 26-The Chemical Brothers
C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

1)Topic Selection:  19 Points-Great subject except that it is kind of
common; though it does effect many people

2)Newspaper and Article Selection:  10 Points-Reliable newspaper; Easy for
the audience (Chem 212 students to relate to)

3)Quality of the Editorial Comments:  9 Points-Comments are too brief, but
of good quality

4)Organic Chemistry Content:  10 Points-The compounds are explained well.
They are also relevant because we have learned much about them from both
lectures and the text

5)Selection and Quality of the Links:  16 Points-1 link did not work;  2
did not seem like very reliable links; teenager=LSD??  Don’t think this is
well embedded.

6)Format, Number and Types of Questions:  8 Points-No reasoning questions;
No PSP question

7)Quality of Questions:  7 Points-Questions aren’t very challenging;  Are
very short and answers are not complete; Didn’t understand Q2

8)Overall Impression:  8 Points-Needs adjustments for classroom
presentation, but the information is very relevant

Total: 87/100 
 

 
 

Evaluation by Group 22

(1)	19pts
	The article is relevent to organic chem and it's an interesting
topic.  
(2)	9pts
	The article is interesting, but it doesn't mention clear cut
chemistry.  Also, the author is not necessarily in the science field.
(3)	7pts
	It was a little too short and it appeared to be summarized from
the book.  There wasn't really anything new introduced into the comments.
(4)	7pts
	There wasn't hardly any info on the chemistry.  It was more
general in this sense and the important structures weren't described
efficiently.
(5)	16pts
	One of your links didn't work at all and most of the links went to
the main pages and you had to find what you were looking for.  
(6)	7pts
	The questions weren't varied when it comes to the categories.  Too
many may have come directly from the article.  Maybe some more specific
questions related to organic.
(7)	8pts
	One question was hard to understand (#2) and the questions weren't
too thought provoking.
(8)	8pts
	It seems a little general for such a wide spread and interesting
topic.


Total:
81

 
 

Evaluation by Group 23

(A) Group Number 23, Truman's Organic Tigers
(B) Group Number 26, The Chemical Brothers
(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

1. Topic Selection: 17 Points (0-20)
The topic was of fairly broad interest to different segments of the
audience.  However, it wasn't something that really caught our attention.
The relation to Organic Chemistry was very direct and very good.

2. Newspaper and Article Selection: 7 Points (0-10)
The article was published in a high quality newspaper, but it was too
long, and drawn out.   The author was qualified to write the article, he
quoted several doctors.  It was recently published (Sept. 99).

3. Quality of the Editorial Comments: 7 Points (0-10)
The editorial comments didn't really place the article in the greater
context of the issue.  They didn't really address any moral or personal
issues, it just explained the chemicals.  It was well organized and easy
to read.

4. Organic Chemisty Content: 10 Points (0-10)
The key issues for Organic Chemistry were addressed very well.  The
editorial comments addressed them and the questions and article related
them very well.  Everything was described and characterized sufficiently,
and all references are complete.

5. Selection and Quality of the Links: 15 Points (0-20)
We had trouble locating some of the links.  They did not load.  Some of
the links were confusing, and we weren't really sure what we were supposed
to get from them.

6. Format, Number, and Types of Questions: 7 Points (0-10)
The questions did not really relate the issue to the broader spectrum of
the audience.  There was no PSP question at the end.  Most of the
questions were purely chemistry.

7. Quality of the Questions: 8 Points (0-10)
Some of the questions don't really address the central issues involved,
but they were very clear and understandable.

8. Overall Impression: 8 Points (0-10)
We didn't think that it was really fit for publication by Prentice Hall,
but it was a good project.

 
 

Evaluation by Group 24

(A) Group 24:  Organophilics
(B) Group 26:  Chemical Bros
(C) Evaluations

1.  Topic selection - 17
Although the topic is interesting to a broad spectrum, its relatedness
to chemistry is weak. 

2. Newspaper and article selection - 7
The article was long enough, exciting, high quality.  But not
about chemistry, it was more about drugs and their effects
 
3. Quality of editorial comments - 8
Summary could have used more work, it was clearly written, but
under-developed. 
 
4. Organic chemistry content - 7
The "organic chemical issue" was NOT made clear.  Couldnt tell if they
had one.. basically just described some drugs.
 
5. Selection and quality of links - 15
The links are in bad shape:  3 are broken, and one doesn't really point
to the right place. 

6. Format, number and types of questions - 8
Had 6 questions, nicely varied. 
 
7. Quality of questions - 7
1st question: no answer. 2nd: unclear wording, and there was no psp
question 

8. Overall impression  - 7
This report needs work to address more of the chemistry behind the drugs.

TOTAL POINTS: 76

----------------------
Dr. Glaser, our group has reevaluated group 26.  Please make a note of the
following corrections.

-Travis Grant

> Hello Scott, I'm glad you contacted me on behalf of your group.  We do
> understand your situation, as we ourselves ran into some of the same
> problems with groups that nailed us with assessments that didn't seem to
fit
> the trend.  We have seen this, and have decided to adjust your scoring
to
> reflect the grade scale most other groups have been graded against.
>
> Note that we'll just leave the comments standing as they are, but after
> having taken a look at the other groups, the scores have changed a bit.
> (Your group was the first one we evaluated).
>
> Topic:  18/20
> Article:  7/10
> Editorial comments: 8/10
> Organic chemistry: 8/10
> Links: 16/20
> Questions: 10/10
> Quality of questions: 7/10
> Overall impression 8/10
>
> -Travis (Organophilics speaker-elect)
----------------------

 
 

Evaluation by Group 25

(A)  group 25, the Porkchop Express
(B)  group 26, the Chemical Brothers
(C)
1.  (19/20) TOPIC SELECTION:  The topic was relavent to the chemistry
studied in class (many types of drugs) and to the audience.
2.  (8/10) ARTICLE SELECTION:  With all the information available on the
topic, a better article could have been found.
3.  (8/10) QUALITY OF EDITORIAL COMMENTS:  The editorial comments relate
well to organic chemistry, but do not pertain much to the article itself.
4.  (10/10) ORGANIC CONTENT: The group did a good job by bringing in more
chemistry to the editorial comments than the article included.
5.  (18/20) QUALITY / SELECTION OF LINKS:  Two links do not work, but the
quality of most of the rest make up for it.
6.  (9/10) FORMAT, #, TYPES OF QUESTIONS:  Good variety, but did not have
a thinking question.
7.  (8/10) QUALITY OF QUESTIONS: The questions were pretty good, but they
were about marginal details, and were fairly difficult to answer.  Perhaps
give hints on solving each question.
8.  (8/10) OVERALL IMPRESSION:  The article was more of a drug information
study than something you would find in a Prentice Hall publication.  In
general, good job.
TOTAL POINTS: 88