Subject: Group 30 Dynamics report

    Our first meeting was in Brady Commons for about a half hour, where
we picked an article from seven that were selected by all members.  Our
second meeting, which lasted about five hours in Memorial Union computer
lab, included completion of the entire project.  One member who was not
able to attend that meeting, found the majority of the links we were to
use.
    For the final peer review, we met again at Memorial Union, and spent
approximately two hours there.
    Choosing times and places to meet that satisfied all members was not
a problem, and a divided workload facilitated an efficient project.
    As a group, we feel that group work is especially workable in a
class such as organic chemistry.  All parties involved are motivated to
do well and interested in the subject matter.
    We would be more than happy to engage in such group activities
again, provided that the kinks (specifically, inconsistency and
malintent in grading) were worked out.  You intended this to be
beneficial in several ways, including our overall grades, and some
reviewers did not get this point.  Some are still competitive and act as
though there is a curve.  Hopefully, you can find a way to work out the
peer reviews without posting the grades while people are still grading
the projects.  This could sway the grading in groups that did not
receive fair or benevolent treatment during review (although we "got the
point" of the whole process and decided to be fair instead of vengeful).

Thank you,

Ryan Lehmann
Brian Cogar
Mike Ballenger
Warren Whipple
Jennifer Pratt
Nick Hurt
Derek Freund