CMPT 276 Spring 2013 (D100 Surrey) - Dr. Fraser

Project Peer-Feedback and Marking Support

The two items below are used give group members feedback, and help assess individual contribution to the group. Students who are not an asset to their group may get 0 on the project, and other group members may gain marks. For example, if one group member is in charge of the settings but fails to work on the project, he/she may get 0 on the project, and other group members might not be penalized a poor handling of the settings.

Agreed-on List of Who Did What

Template for agreed on list of who-did-what.

In clcass, on the last day of class, submit a hard-copy (print out) listing who did which parts of the project. All group members present that day must sign it. (This ensures everyone agrees; those who don't come to class miss their chance to check it!). The list is not worth any marks, but if not submitted (or if terribly incomplete), then all group members get 0 on the project. The list should include the contributions of each member, such as:

• Work done on documents such as the requirements document.
• Design, technical & coding contributions.
• Any service to group (such as helping debug someone else's work, or resolve SVN issues).
• An significant roadblocks or challenges each person faced which delayed their work (such as computer stolen).

Individual Peer Review

Template for individual peer-review.

Each group member electronically submits a self and peer review. It will be marked based on the quality of comments and evaluations. Comments should be in the form of constructive feedback, and supported by evidence. Students who do not submit this review will get a 0 on the project (not just these 5 marks!). Each person's review must have both of the following:

• Anonymous feedback to group members:
  • 1 paragraph about each other group member.
  • Suggested discussion points include:
    • Teamwork: What role did he/she play in the team? Were they easy to work with? What did they do well? How could they improve?
    • Technical Skills: Did his/her work always meet your expectations? What did they do that impressed you? How could they improve?
    • Communication: How clearly can he/she communicate (written and verbally)? How can they improve?
    • Group Interactions: Did they work well with others? Did they arrive on time? Did they complete their work on time? Generally, how could he/she improve as a team member?
  • Comments about each group member will be collected and then given to him/her. The name of the student who wrote the comment will not be included (but depending on what you say, they may figure out who said it!). The idea is to proved each student with honest feedback about what they are like to work with, and how they could improve. This type of feedback is hard to get, so pay careful attention to what your group members say!
• Private feedback to instructor:
  • Required part: Self evaluation of personal contribution to the project. Use the same list of points mentioned for the anonymous section above.
  • Optional part: Comments about each other group members which will not be distributed to other group members.
  • Optional part: Comments about project in general. What did you like (and why)? What did you dislike (and why)? Any suggestions to the instructor on how the project could be improved.
• Peer-Review Marking Guide.

Note that just because you have some constructive criticism about a group member, it does not mean that he or she will receive a lesser mark. Each of us have many things we can improve on; this is your opportunity to help your group members identify theirs. Students will generally receive a lesser mark only if they do not contribute their fair share to the group. When this happens, it is unfair to the other group members who are being used by the slacker. This is your opportunity to have good work rewarded.