To provide an honest and thoughtful evaluation of both your contribution and your team members’ contributions, each student working in a group need to submit peer-assessment using the rubric below
| Criterion | 5 Points | 4 Points | 3 Points | 2 Points | 1 Point |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1. Understanding of team dynamics | Consistently demonstrates a deep understanding of team dynamics: Contribute to a positive team environment, considering and respecting the perspectives of others | Generally understands team dynamics and actively participates in team discussions: Collaborate well with others but may occasionally need more awareness of team dynamics | Demonstrates a basic understanding of team dynamics and contributes when prompted: May require more active engagement in team discussions and activities | Shows limited awareness of team dynamics: Occasionally contributes but may not fully engage in team discussions or activities | Lacks understanding of team dynamics: Rarely contributes to team discussions or activities, hindering overall collaboration |
| Q2. Communication and collaboration | Communicates effectively and collaborates seamlessly with team members: Actively listens, provides valuable input, and fosters open communication | Communicates well and collaborates effectively most of the time: Occasionally needs improvement in terms of clarity or responsiveness | Communicates adequately and collaborates when necessary: May require more consistent and proactive communication with the team | Communication is occasionally unclear or lacking, impacting collaboration: Needs to improve responsiveness and active participation | Communication is a significant challenge, hindering effective collaboration: Rarely contributes meaningfully to team discussions |
| Q3. Commitment and work ethic | Demonstrates a strong commitment to the project, consistently putting in extra effort: Shows a commendable work ethic and takes initiative | Generally committed to the project and displays a good work ethic: May occasionally need more proactive engagement or effort | Meets the minimum level of commitment and work ethic: May need occasional reminders or encouragement to stay engaged | Shows limited commitment and work ethic: Requires more consistent effort and a proactive approach to tasks | Lacks commitment and work ethic, impacting overall project progress: Needs a significant improvement in effort and engagement |
| Q4. Reliability and meeting deadlines | Consistently meets all deadlines and is highly reliable: Delivers high-quality work on time or ahead of schedule | Generally reliable and meets most deadlines: May occasionally need more attention to ensure all tasks are completed on time | Meets deadlines but may require occasional reminders: Requires improvement in consistently meeting all project timelines | Struggles to meet deadlines consistently, impacting project progress: Needs more focus on timely completion of tasks | Frequently fails to meet deadlines, significantly affecting project timelines: Requires immediate attention to improve reliability |
| Q5. Contribution to Project Tasks | Consistently makes substantial and high-quality contributions to project tasks: Takes a proactive role in various aspects of the project | Generally contributes well to project tasks: May occasionally need more involvement or focus on specific areas | Contributes adequately to assigned tasks: May require more consistent effort or additional contributions in certain areas | Shows limited contribution to project tasks: Requires more active involvement and improvement in task completion | Lacks meaningful contribution to project tasks: Requires immediate attention to actively participate and contribute effectively |
Use this Peer Assessment Form to provide you peer assessment both quantitatively using the above rubric and qualitatively by commenting on team collaboration.B e constructive and provide specific examples where possible. Here is an exmaple:
Team Member Name Q1 Score Q2 Score Q3 Score Q4 Score Q5 Score Total Score Brooke 5 5 5 5 5 25 Jon (me) 5 5 5 5 5 25 Sue 5 5 5 5 4 24 Tom 5 5 5 5 4 24 Additional Comments: Each of the team members contributed a meaningful amount of work to this project. What follows is my impression of how it all came together, focusing on the roles of the other team members. I’ll leave their impressions of me to their assessments. I gave Brooke 5s across the board because she was great at moving the project forward. She planned in advance and communicated clearly with the rest of the team. She went into detail with the data she pulled for air quality and put together the outline for the final report, delegating tasks to other team members.
Giving Sue and Tom 4s on question 5 does not mean they were especially lacking in that area or that they did not contribute a great deal to this project. But when you have one person leading the final report (Brooke) and one person leading the data collection/visualization (Jon) then inevitably other team members are in more supporting roles. Sue put together the framework for the presentation and made meaningful contributions to the final report, as did Tom.
I was very happy with each member of the team and did not feel at any point that someone wasn’t pulling their weight or putting in their fair share of time and effort. At different times over the course of the project, each team member proposed meeting times and locations and followed through with tasks. We also checked in with each other regularly on the progress we were making and would offer to help with any pain points.
If a team member is not meaningfully contributing to the project, please inform the instructor as soon as possible. You have the option to remove their name when submitting the project deliverables after discussing with the instructor. Clearly indicate this by assigning a score of zero in the peer assessment for that individual and in the additinal comments section.