New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT)
Computer and Information Science Department (CIS)
CIS677: Information System Principles, Spring 2001
Professor: Michael Bieber

Quick Links: [677 Home] [Schedule] [WebBoard] [To Know] [Links] [Homeworks] [Chunking] [Discussion] [Course Flow (what to do each week)]

CIS677 Spring '01 - Discussion Quality Evaluation Form
Discussion/Article Critique Conferences P-Z

This form is for evaluating the discussion and article critique conference participation for the distance sections. You will judge the chunking participation separately.

For each participant in your own discussion group only, please evaluate the overall quality of their discussion comments and article critique comments. Please judge the quality of the comments, not whether they were on time or not.

Do not evaluate your own.

Many students question whether they are capable of grading their peers, and whether this is even appropropriate. We strongly believe both. By the end of the semester you will have read 20-25 chunks and replies from each member of your group. We do not expect you to have to reread all the chunks in your conference to make this evaluation. You should have simply a good feel for the overall quality of each group member after this period of time, and be able to grade them based on what you recall at the end of the semester.

In your evaluation, please remember that the quality of chunks does not arise from your classmates' background in IS.  Chunking comments can:

• be based on your own experiences with IS as a user or simply a member of society
• relate the chunk to a prior reading from class, from another class or in the trade press
• relate the chunk to current news items
• relate the chunk to one's feelings about its topic
• reflect an ideal situation or fantasy
• etc.

Please return this evaluation form to Professor Bieber three times this semester - by 2/14, 3/7 and 4/18. You can mail it to Prof. Bieber - NJIT, CIS Department - Newark, NJ 07102-1982 - or fax it to (973) 596-5777.

The first two versions will not count towards anyone's grade. Instead they will tell you how everyone feels you are doing. The final version will count towards the course grade, and should reflect everyone's chunking quality across the semester.

Note that all evaluations will be held in strictest confidence - no one will see the evaluations except the instructor.

Please be honest in your evaluations.

Thanks!

Professor Bieber

Your Name: ___________________________________

Discussion/Article Critique Conferences P-Z

Ratings:

• 5 - outstanding in every way (A: 94-100)
• 4 - thoughtful and insightful (A-/B+: 85-93)
• 3 - interesting (B: 80-84)
• 2 - weak (C: 70-79)
• 1 - poor, useless or non-existent (D/F: 0-69)

 

Karen Patten	5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
Venkata Potluri	5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
Amit Shah	5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
Keke Shen	5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
Peichung Shih	5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
Rajneesh Shrimali	5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
TC Wang	5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
Shanker Udyaver	5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
Sal Washah	5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
Songmei Yu	5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1

*** Do you feel this is a effective and fair way to judge chunking quality? Please feel free to make comments or suggestions on this sheet, or on-line (anonymously?) in the feedback conference. Thanks!

Please circle one: Yes - No - Not Sure

This page: http://www.cis.njit.edu/~bieber/CIS677S01/discussion-quality-p-z.html