REQUIRED: Individual Team Member Evaluations
Each student registered in this course is required
to evaluate each other member of their team on a scale of A to
F, according to the rubric described below. Your
evaluation is due by Wednesday, August
16, 2023, at 5:00 PM (noon) CST.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE A GRADE FOR EACH OF YOUR TEAM MEMBERS BY THE DEADLINE ABOVE WILL RESULT IN AN "F" BEING ASSIGNED FOR YOUR PORTION OF THE STUDENT-ASSIGNED GRADE. AN “F” FOR YOUR PORTION OF THE PEER EVALUATION WILL SEVERELY IMPACT YOUR OWN FINAL GRADE, POSSIBLY CAUSING YOU TO FAIL THE COURSE.
DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS:
For example, if you are “Bob”, and there are two other
students on your team, “Jennie” and “Tom”, YOU would send
a SINGLE email DIRECTLY to mark@cs.uchicago.edu cc'ing alan.illing@gmail.com with your assessed grades of the
OTHER students on your team, such as:
*******
Jennie: A-
Tom: C+
Thanks, Bob
*******
In turn, Jennie would submit grades for you (Bob) and Tom, and Tom would submit grades for you (Bob) and Jennie.
ALL GRADES SUBMITTED BY STUDENTS OF THEIR PEERS WILL BE HELD CONFIDENTIAL AND WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE "REVERSE ENGINEERED" TO DISCOVER IDENTITY OR INDIVIDUAL STUDENT ASSESSMENTS.
You may adjust the letters (A through F) with "pluses" (+) or "minuses" (-) for nuances, such as "A-" or "B+" etc. Make sure you identify yourself in the email. You are free to add additional information, but just the raw grades of your teammates are all that is required. You may feel free to grade as "hard" or "easy" as you like.
RUBRIC (these are just
suggested guidelines):
A: The individual attended all team meetings, was always helpful, creative, and worked hard throughout the entire quarter, helping significantly in the deliverables, his/her work was always excellent. One might call this individual a "team leader". A great joy to work with and you're thankful they were on your team.
B: The individual attended most or all of the meetings, delivered work in a timely fashion that was of good quality, was often helpful, creative, and worked hard throughout the quarter, supporting the team. They were very helpful to have on your team.
C: The individual attended perhaps most of the meetings, delivered generally (but not always) decent work, but something in the interaction was missing...perhaps the individual had other commitments that came before the team and its responsibilities, perhaps it was something else. They were helpful to have on your team, but in the end did little to effectively contribute to the team’s final project success.
D: The individual
attended a few of the meetings, but was sometimes, if not
often, "away without leave", perhaps just not working as hard
as you would have liked. The work the individual
delivered was sometimes OK, but other times sub-par, work that
sometimes needed to be fixed or just disposed of.
Perhaps the attitude towards the deliverables was not
quite where it should have been. The individual, in the
end, contributed rather little value to the resulting
deliverables, and quite possibly
negatively impacted the overall team’s final project.
F: The individual
contributed little or nothing to the team in terms of
deliverables and was at times useless. The team would
have functioned just as well without them. They might
have even at times been detrimental to the team's final
product.
GRADING EVALUATION:
The Grading Scale for the Peer
Evaluation is as follows:
|
PEER EVALUATION GRADING SCALE |
|
|
Letter Grade |
Points/12 |
|
A+ |
12 |
|
A |
11 |
|
A- |
10 |
|
B+ |
9 |
|
B |
8 |
|
B- |
7 |
|
C+ |
6 |
|
C |
5 |
|
C- |
4 |
|
D+ |
3 |
|
D |
2 |
|
D- |
1 |
|
F |
0 |
This scale evenly distributes points from 12 (11 for
an A, 12 points for an A+) down to 0 (for an F), subtracting 1
points for each “grade level”. As
an example, suppose there are three peers on a team. If one peer assigns the student an
“A+”, this would be worth 12 points, looking across the row for
the “A+”. If the other peer assigns
the same student a “B”, this would be worth 8 points, again
looking across the row for the “B”. Averaged,
that
student would receive ((12+8)/2) points, or 10 points out of 12
possible, for the peer evaluation. That student would
receive an "A-" for the peer portion of their final grade.
This distribution is designed to offset the possibility that one or more students on a team causes the overall team’s project grade to suffer, despite the best efforts of the others on the team. Imagine that the same three peers are on the same project. Imagine also that Peers 1 and 2 work diligently and do a fabulous job, but Peer 3 drops the ball and essentially causes the project to fail, through lack of hard work, lack of caring, or some other negative impact. The project grade (the faculty-assigned portion of the grade that is the same for all three students) might be a 75% (of 28 possible points). But actually, most of that poor grade falls on the shoulders of Peer 3. To offset this, imagine that Peer 1 assigns Peer 3 a grade of a B-, and Peer 2 assigns Peer 3 a grade of D. In this case, Peer 3 would receive ((7+2)/2) points, or 4.5 out of 12 points, for the peer evaluation.
As a further example, imagine the following peer grading scenario:
|
Peer-Assigned
Grades |
|||
|
Grades
Assigned By: |
Peer 1
Grades |
Peer 2
Grades |
Peer 3
Grades |
|
Peer 1 |
|
B |
A- |
|
Peer 2 |
C+ |
|
A |
|
Peer 3 |
D+ |
A |
|
Peer 1 assigned a grade of B to Peer 2 and a grade of A- to Peer 3. Likewise, Peer 2 assigned a grade of C+ to Peer 1 and a grade of A to Peer 3. For some reason, Peer 1 must not have performed well on the project, because her peers gave her a C+ and a D+ for her particular effort and performance on the project.
In this case, using the grading scale above in yellow, the Peer Grades would fall out like this:
|
PEER EVALS |
Peer 1 |
Peer 2 |
Peer 3 |
|
Letter Grades Assigned Peer A |
C+ |
B |
A- |
|
Letter Grades Assigned Peer B |
D+ |
A |
A |
|
NUMERIC GRADE ASSIGNED |
4.5 |
9.5 |
10.5 |
Peer 3 would receive a 10.5/12 for his peer grade for excellent peer grades of an A and A-. Peer two would receive a 9.5/12 for good peer grades of a B and an A. Unfortunately, Peer 1 would receive only 4.5/12 points for their peer grades of a C+ and a D+. The higher averages for Peers 2 and 3 would go towards offsetting the negative project grade (by the faculty) of a 75% (of 28 points) they will receive (along with Peer 1) because of Peer 1’s under-performance.
Please note that your evaluation of your
own performance is irrelevant in this rubric as you do not get
to evaluate your own performance...only your peer team members
do.