Anonymous self evaluation and peer evaluationPlease evaluate each group member's contribution (including your own), using the following scale. Please do not attempt to evaluate the "quality" of the contribution—that's what the marker will be doing! Your evaluation should be based only on each member's level of participation and effort relative to the rest of the group, i.e., the degree to which each member fulfilled his/her responsibilities. For example, did this student attend team meetings (if any), make a serious effort at assigned work, notify teammates when he/she was unable to attend a meeting or fulfill a responsibility, listen to ideas and opinions respectfully and give them careful consideration, generally cooperate with the group effort, attend course lectures and tutorials, etc.
You are strongly encouraged to discuss this with your group members ahead of time: the goal is to get everyone to contribute and to agree on how much of a contribution each one made—not to have someone try to get a "free ride" and then have everyone else complain! In particular, in the (hopefully) unlikely event that something goes very wrong and cannot be fixed by communicating with your group members, you should contact your instructor immediately to discuss your situation. To avoid the possibility of a disgruntled group member trying to "take revenge" on someone else by submitting bad evaluations for them, and to encourage you to discuss and agree on your evaluations ahead of time, any large discrepancy between the evaluations submitted for one group member by everyone else will result in me contacting everyone involved (individually) to find out exactly what happened. This is not a threat (even though it may sound like one): it's just how I plan to resolve conflict within groups—and hopefully, it will never actually come to that with any group.
Submit your evaluation as a plain text (ASCII) file,
using CDF's Every group member's ratings will be combined, using a (not so) secret formula and rare alien technology, to adjust everyone's individual grade—either up or down is possible. More precisely, each rating is assigned a percentage value as in the list above. Then, for each group, (1) for each student i, compute Ai = the average of all evaluations submitted for student i, (2) compute M = the median of the averages for students in the group (if the number of students is even, take the middle value closest to 0, or 0 if both values are equally close), (3) the adjustment for each student i is then Ai - M. Fictional ExampleSuppose Alice R. Student and Bob L. Somebody complete their assignment and that Alice comes up with the main idea of the answers for each question and also writes one of them up, while Bob only writes up the other two answers (but both of them are much longer than the one Alice wrote up). Then they may agree that both contributions were average—even though Alice came up with most of the ideas, the actual workload was shared fairly, and the goal of the peer evaluation is not to rate academic ability, just good teamwork—in which case Alice's and Bob's "evaluation.txt" file might look like this: Alice's "evaluation.txt"
Bob's "evaluation.txt"
and the adjustments for Alice and Bob would be computed as follows:
On the other hand, if Alice feels that she contributed her fair share but that Bob did not contribute as much because the write-up for his questions was sloppy and still contained many small errors that they had previously discussed and agreed to correct, while Bob feels that his contribution was average because he took a fair amount of time out of his busy work schedule, and they can't agree on this, they may submit files that look like this: Alice's "evaluation.txt"
Bob's "evaluation.txt"
and the adjustments for Alice and Bob would be computed as follows:
Since this is a small discrepancy, I would not contact Alice and Bob to find out what happened. |
![[FP]](../images/fp.png){kind=small}
