Peer Assessment of Student #1
Peer Assessment of Student #1
|Topic & Paper Selection
|Synopsis & Identification of
Specific Problem (0-15)
|Computational Section (0-10)
|Format, Number and Types of Questions
|Quality of the Questions (0-20)
|Presentation & Defense (0-20)
|Overall Impression (0-10)
Evaluation by Student #2
(A) Evaluating Unit: Sundeep Rayat
(B) Evaluation of Unit: Nancy Vosnidou
(C) Response to various Evaluation Categories
(1) Topic and Paper Selection: 10 points
The paper was too difficult to understand. It was highly
technical or in other words too much theory.
(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 12 points
The synopsis was too brief. It didn't help much in understanding
the paper or in answering the questions.
(3) Computational Section:10 points
(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions:10 points
(5) Quality of Questions: 20 points
The questions were good. I realized this only after the
presentation, which gave me better understanding of the paper.
(6) Presentation & Defense: 20 points
Very well Organised. The presenter really knew what she was
talking about. The overheads were nicely done.
(7) Overall Impression: 5 points
I will not recommend this paper for use in a classroom. It is too
hard to understand and requires strong mathematical background that most
of us as chemists don't posses.
Total Points: 87/100
Evaluation by Student #3
(A) Susan Lopez
(B) Nancy Vosnidou
1. Topic and Paper Selection: 14
Meets the criteria as far as computational technique. The paper is from a
top notch journal (1998). The computational method is an important one.
Although it has several major drawbacks, it does provide a novel way of
finding saddle points in PE surfaces.
2. Synopsis and Identification of a Specific Problem: 13
Synopsis is brief and understandable. The problem is clearly defined.
There really is no 'specific' problem since this is a new method of
obtaining saddle points. The problem does have significance outside of
this paper since obtaining saddle point information can be a difficult, as
to whether or not this method will be embraced by the computational
community, I really can’t say.
3. Computational Section: 10
The methods are well summarized, and sufficient data is given. The
information seems very complicated to me…although this could be a factor
of my own personal aversion to calculus. The questions, however, are very
straight forward and to the point.
4. Format, Number, and Types of Questions: 9
There are 5 questions, the categories are specified, and they seem to be
correct. They cover at least 3 different categories, and the page
limit/format request went a bit over the limit.
5. Quality of the Questions: 19
Good questions that relate directly back to the paper. They test whether
or not you read the paper and actually got something out of it. I did not
actually do the problem set.
6. Presentation and Defense: 20
Nancy looked and sounded liked she new what she was talking about, and was
well organized. She lectured from memory which is nice when you are a
spectator because it helps keep you focused. The overheads were clear and
concise. She was understandable and did not have too many slides. She
answered the questions from the students as best she could…it was obvious
to me that she had a very good understanding of the topic.
7. Overall Impression: 7
Although the project and presentation was done very well, I'm not sure
that this topic would be a good choice for an introductory computational
class. I support the idea of reading and teaching 'cutting-edge'
techniques, but for a class that as of yet has a relatively limited scope,
I don't think it would be appropriate.
Evaluation by Student #4
Peer evaluation of Nancy by Iiris
(1) Topic and Paper Selection: 15 Points (0-15)
(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 13 Points (0-15)
The introduction was very nice to read, but the specific problem
was a little hard to find.
(3) Computational Section: 10 Points (0-10)
(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 Points (0-10)
(5) Quality of the Questions: 20 Points (0-20)
(6) Presentation & Defense: 20 Points (0-20)
(7) Overall Impression. 10 Points (0-10)
Evaluation by Student #5
(A) #5 Wu Zhengyu
(B) #1 Nancy
1. Topic and Paper Selection:15
The selected problem meets the required critiria. The computational
method is useful and the paper is published in a top journal.
2. Synopsis and identification of the problem: 10
The synopsis is understandable, but it does not show why it is
important to develope a new method to calculate first order saddle
point (the conventional coordinate driving method is not very
3. Computational section: 8
The computational method was summerized OK. I think I need more
4. Format, Number and Types of Questions : 9
The questions aer well organized and covered three categories.
It will be even better if the table was in Word or Excel format
instead of copied from the paper.
5. Quality of the Questions : 18
6. Presentation & defense : 18
Nancy showed her knowledge and confidence in the presentation. The
slides were very well arranged. If she can speak a little bit slower
and make some more explation in details, it will be better.
7. Overall impression : 8
The content has been well studied and carefully organized. I think
if I want to use it as an assignment set in the I would make some