© 1998 Rainer Glaser. All rights reserved.
The University of Missouri at Columbia, Chemistry 433, Computational Chemistry, WS98

Collaborative Learning
and Peer Review
in Chemical Learning Communities

Project #1: Creation of Problem Assignments

Peer Review Instructions

The evaluations of the Projects #1 will be carried out by your peers in this course. The created problem set (posted on the Chemistry 433 Course Web Site) as well as its presentation & defense will be evaluated. The peer review will be carried out by individuals (if they are not part of a group) or by groups. Each unit is required to evaluate the projects of all other groups. Complete evaluations need to be submitted to the instructor by email. Separate emails should be used for each evaluation made by each unit. The subject line should read "Peer evaluation of group X by group Y".

Your group can assign up to 100 points to a project. The evaluations from all peer evaluations will be averaged. Do take these evaluations seriously, you are affecting the grade of your fellow students. Try to be fair and objective. You must be comfortable with your judgment and be able to stand by it and defend it in public. Your evaluations have to be made in writing and they will be made public on the web.

Your evaluation report should contain the following items. Please stick exactly to the format. Use the same item numbers.

(A) Unit Number and Unit Name of Evaluating Unit

(B) Unit Number and Unit Name of Evaluated Unit

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
In the next few items, you will be asked to assess various aspects of the problem assignments generated by the individiual or group you are evaluating. You will also be asked to evaluate the presentation and defense part of the project. For each item, your peer-evaluation report should contain one line that contains the number of the item followed by the headline of the item in which you replaced the X by a number in the range indicated. Below each such line, you should very briefly justify your assignment. More detailed justifications should be given if the assigned score is either very high or very low.

(1) Topic and Paper Selection: X Points (0-15)
Does the selected problem meet the required criteria as far as the computational techniques are concerned? Does the paper present an important computational method? Was the paper published in a top-notch research journal in the last 3 years?

(2) Synopsis and Identification of Specific Problem: X Points (0-15)
Is the synopsis brief, concise and understandable? Has the specific problem been clearly defined? Is the specific problem important and highly relevant to this paper? Is the specific problem only a marginal sideshow and not worthwhile the scrutiny? Does the specific problem have significance beyond the scope of this paper?

(3) Computational Section: X Points (0-10)
Have the computational methods been well summarized? Have sufficient data been give? Have important graphs been scanned and edited in the best possible way? Is the information given sufficient to answer the questions? Is the information overly redundent?

(4) Format, Number and Types of Questions: X Points (0-10)
Does the problem contain 5 questions as requested? Are the categories specified for the questions? Have the correct categories been identified for the questions? Do the questions cover at least three different categories? Consider here also whether the page limitations and the format requests have been taken into account.

(5) Quality of the Questions: X Points (0-20)
Are the questions good ones or are they bizarre and far-fetched? Do the questions address central issues or marginal details? Are the questions written in an understandable and clear fashion? Have you been able to work the problem set in a reasonable time?

(6) Presentation & Defense: X Points (0-20)
Did you have the impression that the presenter(s) really knew what [s]he(they) was(were) talking about? Was the presentation organized? Did the presenter(s) merely lecture from notes or memory? Were the overheads done carefully and was the number of transparencies adequate? Was(Were) the presenter(s) understandable? Did the presenters handle questions in a satisfactory fashion?

(7) Overall Impression. X Points (0-10)
If you were the instructor of Chemistry 433, would you consider this problem set fit for use as an assignment in class (most points), a useful assignment after minor or major adjustments, or unfit for distribution and general classroom use (no points)?

Relevant Dates and Deadlines

Submission of Peer-Evaluations. Friday, February 27 (midnight), 1998.

Absolument mon ami, l'excellence est une habitude.