Project Evaluation
Student Group Peer Evals:
1. the video clip was not clear; volume too low.
2. should have used more visuals with the white board.
3. too much reading; looked at screen too much; a lot of reading right off of the website; try to focus more on the crowd than the board.
4. not loud enough; was really hard to understand; too fast and also mumbled.
5. check your spelling.
6. liked the graphics used; very colorful, not dull.
7. not really clear about what you were saying about the separation.
8. good use of a quiz on website to test knowledge.
9. Jefferson died in 1926?
10. The presentation could be a little better if some people in the group were in the front, instead of grouped together in the corner.
11. more audience involvement (needed).
Your Peer Evals:
1. did not show much interest.
2. did not do any work for this project, but did present.
3. good worker; occasionally late to meetings, but always had good input.
4. hard worker; very indepth on research; very pleased to help.
5. was not able to attend meetings at the last minute.
6. got things done even when they were sick.
7. could have done a little more work.
Observation: I found it strange that in cases where comments were generally negative, the scores were 8 and 9. Overall, this group did not perform well as a team; there was a lack of diligence and commitment to the project, and group product (this webpage) and presentation suffered as a result.
Strong points of your site:
1. the use of color and images were well balanced with the text and narrative; the coloring on the Chronology page was especially helpful.
2. the use of a quiz on one page was a nice addition.
3. including video was also a nice addition; unfortunately, it was poor in quality.
4. liked the perspective on how different countries deal with the same issue.
Areas that need improvement:
1. the Key Figures page, while well constructed, was obviously taken from another source; it is important to give credit to those other sources, even if a web link, so that the reader knows where it came from.
2. Spelling, spelling, spelling: I was shocked to see the extent of spelling errors on this page (as we all noticed them during the presentation); this reflects a lack of diligence. An occasional issue is not serious; when is evident here IS serious. There were 10 spelling errors in the first two paragraphs on the Quotes page, and that does not count what is in the following five paragraphs.
3. the bushflash.com site on the Implications page is not explained at all; how is a reader supposed to know of its significance?
4. some explanation would help readers interepret the images/photos page; what is the significance of each of them?
Overall, this group did not produce a high quality website. Some of the issues are so fundamental that it makes the reader wonder if they are in college, or elementary school. It is ironic that this group had more time than any other group in the course, which also meant they had more opportunities to learn from the experiences of the other groups as they presented their projects. This group obviously did not make use of their opportunities or time. That is unfortunate.
Dr. Dan Fox
