Peer Assessment of Student #4 Peer Assessment of Student #4


Category Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 5 Average
Topic & Paper Selection (0-15) 15 15 14 - 14.6
Synopsis & Identification of Specific Problem (0-15) 15 12 12 - 13
Computational Section (0-10) 7 8 10 - 8.3
Format, Number and Types of Questions (0-10) 10 9 7 - 8.7
Quality of the Questions (0-20) 20 20 18 - 19.3
Presentation & Defense (0-20) 13 10 5 - 9.3
Overall Impression (0-10) 8 10 7 - 8.3
TOTAL 88 84 73 - 81.7




Evaluation by Student #1
(A)	Evaluating Unit: Nancy Vosnidou

(B)	Evaluated Unit: Iiris Khan
"The study of photoisomerization of cis-stilbene using molecular dynamics
and quantum chemistry methods"

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

(1)	Topic and Paper Selection				15 points
(out of 15)
	Nice choice, very interesting.

(2)	Synposis and Identification of Specific Problem: 15 (out of 15)
Good, succinct summary.

(3)	Computational Section: 7 points (out of
10)
I would have liked a little more detail.

(4)	Format, Number and Types of Questions: 10 points (out of 10)

(5)	Quality of Questions: 20 points (out of 20)
Wow! Very in-depth questions that require critical thinking.

(6)	Presentation and Defense: 13 points (out of 20)
	I felt the presentation could have been more organized. Also, I
could not hear very well.

(7)	Overall Impression: 8 points (out of 10)


TOTAL		88 (out of 100)




Evaluation by Student #2
(A) Evaluating Unit: Sundeep Rayat

(B) Evaluation of Unit: Iiris Kahn

(C) Response to various Evaluation Categories

(1) Topic and Paper Selection: 15 points
Good choice of the article.

(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 12 points
The synopsis was too brief.

(3) Computational Section:8 points
Well summarized. Would have been nice to have the  potential
energy diagram  in there.

(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions:9 points
Too many questions.

(5) Quality of Questions: 20 points
The questions were good.

(6) Presentation & Defense: 10 points
The speaker was difficult to hear. The presentation could have
been more organised.

(7) Overall Impression: 10 points
Good article.


Total Points: 84/100


Evaluation by Student #3
(A)Susan Lopez
(B)Iiris Kahn
(C)Response
1. Topic and Paper Selection: 14
Good paper, good journal

2. Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: 12
Too brief, there is barely one paragraph of introduction.

3. Computational Section:10
Data well summarized. Some of the wording is unclear. 

4. Format, Number, and Types of Questions: 7
There are way too many questions. The categories are specified, and cover
at least three areas. The page format/length has been observed.

5. Quality of the Questions: 18
These are good questions, and they seem to address central issues.
They deal mainly with computational aspects.

6. Presentation and Defense: 5
The presenter did not appear to have a firm grasp of what she was talking
about. She lectured from memory yet it was hardly audible. The
transparencies were simply copies of the paper, which I really distaste in
lectures of any sort. The number of transparencies was also inadequate, I
think she only had two. The presenter was not understandable, and frankly
it did not seem as though she had sat down previous to the talk and put
her thoughts in order. She did not do a very satisfactory job in answering
the questions posed.

7. Overall Impression: 7
My overall impression is that this problem set would be ok to give as an
assignment. However, some of the questions like #3 are not very clear.
What do you think the preferred configuration isÉbased on what? There
should be more to this question, like based on sterics, on the rotational
barrier energy given, etc. maybe with a bit of 'tweaking' it would be
useful.  




Evaluation by Student #5
NO REVIEW RECEIVED