PEER EVALUATION of a GROUP PRESENTATION

GROUP # PROJECT Case Urea

EVALUATOR Nawaf
Student Names
NAME Mutaman Abdelrahim
Abdelaziz
Instructions on use of the Rubric
 Insert your name, group number and student names in highlighted boxes
 Evaluate 2 groups using the rubric below.
 Rate each of the following areas as Excellent (3), Good (2), or Needs Work (1).
 Each element is out of 3.
 Groups have 5 minutes allocated for their presentation.
 Add Comments to explain your rating and answer the questions below.

Area Rating Comments

(3, 2, 1)
Content (e.g. interest, appropriateness for audience and assignment, 3 The content was clear and
clear focus, good support and details, identified sources adequately) interesting. It was brief and
on point.
Organization (e.g. easy to follow, clear sections [introduction, body, and 3 The flow of the
conclusion], transitions, coherent) presentation was easy to
follow and understandable.
Delivery and Overall Communication (e.g. eye contact, appropriate 2 Abdelaziz overall
volume and rate of speech, clarity of voice, comprehensibility, posture performance was excellent.
and body language, use of media and visual aids, all members well-
Nawaf’s performance was
prepared)
good, but his volume level
was low.
Both had eye contact and
delivered what was
necessary.
Rubric rating: Excellent (3), Good (2), or Needs Work (1).

1. What is the one thing that you learned from this presentation?
Granulation of urea and how it happens inside the granular.

2. What is the one thing the group did well?

The overall presentation was good, but if you need me to specify one thing it would be the
process flow diagram of the process.

3. What changes do you think the presenters could have made to make their presentation more effective?
If they added the specifications of the granular urea, it would have been awesome.
They did not mention anything regarding the prilled urea.

4. Additional comments
CHME 405/406 Chemical Process Industries (CPI) © Dr. Fadwa Eljack
Fall 2023
 No comment.

PEER EVALUATION of a GROUP PRESENTATION

GROUP # PROJECT Case Steel
EVALUATOR Mohamad Saad
Student Names
NAME Mutaman Abdelrahim
Beshr
Instructions on use of the Rubric
 Insert your name, group number and student names in highlighted boxes
 Evaluate 2 groups using the rubric below.
 Rate each of the following areas as Excellent (3), Good (2), or Needs Work (1).
 Each element is out of 3.
 Groups have 5 minutes allocated for their presentation.
 Add Comments to explain your rating and answer the questions below.

Area Rating Comments

(3, 2, 1)
Content (e.g. interest, appropriateness for audience and assignment, 2 The content was interesting
clear focus, good support and details, identified sources adequately) but missing many aspects
including (safety,
engineering aspects, etc.).
Organization (e.g. easy to follow, clear sections [introduction, body, and 3 The flow of the
conclusion], transitions, coherent) presentation was easy to
follow and understandable.
Delivery and Overall Communication (e.g. eye contact, appropriate 3 Overall performance was
volume and rate of speech, clarity of voice, comprehensibility, posture excellent.
and body language, use of media and visual aids, all members well-
Both had eye contact and
prepared)
delivered what was
necessary.
Rubric rating: Excellent (3), Good (2), or Needs Work (1).

5. What is the one thing that you learned from this presentation?
Two methods for the production of steel and the differences between them:
Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) versus Electric Arc Furnace (EAF)

6. What is the one thing the group did well?

The introduction to steel production.

7. What changes do you think the presenters could have made to make their presentation more effective?

CHME 405/406 Chemical Process Industries (CPI) © Dr. Fadwa Eljack

Fall 2023
 Add more to the content (safety, engineering aspects, etc.)

8. Additional comments
No comment

CHME 405/406 Chemical Process Industries (CPI) © Dr. Fadwa Eljack

Fall 2023