ALLOCATING THE MARK FOR YOUR GROUP WORK

During ITM700/800, you will submit two major reports for grading. A single mark is assigned for each report and your professor makes no effort to determine the level of effort put in by each team member. Unless advised otherwise by the Student Team, your professor will assign the same mark to each student.

Sadly, however, there will always be some students who, for whatever reason, do not pull their weight in the project and to recognise this we have developed a method of rating the contribution of each team member -- this is described in the following pages of this document.

You should note that, while this is intended as a way to recognise extra levels of contribution or a failure to meet the team’s agreed expectations, it is not intended to be punitive. Should team dynamics not be working well, or an individual member not be meeting their commitments at any serious level, we recommend you discuss these situations with your professor before they explode into a serious dispute. Do not leave these issues until the end of the semester!

Here is the process we recommend each team follow:

First, decide if you intend to accept the same mark or whether you want to use the peer review process to allocate marks. (We recommend every group use the process – giving and getting feedback is something you will likely experience after you graduate and this is a very useful exercise, even if you decide to assign the same mark to all students).

Next, many teams find it useful to prepare a short statement of joint expectations for project objectives and the effort required. (This might include the ways in which you will work together, when you intend to meet, requirements for attendance at meetings, production of deliverables, and so on.) This can be very helpful when you look back of the actual efforts during the semester.

  • You must do this at the beginning of each term (i.e. for each of ITM700 and 800) and advise your professor if you do intend to assign marks based on peer assessment. Should you decide not to do so (and most teams take this approach), you cannot change your mind during the semester.

Then, decide how you intend to rate contribution and, if not by the method described here, discuss the proposed approach with your professor.

Finally, when you submit each report, if you wish the professor to make use of the peer review results to assign marks, attach a SIGNED copy of it to your project report. Note: The signature is required from each student to say they took part in the review and saw the summary document. The signature is not an assent to the rating. THIS MUST BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH YOUR PROJECT REPORT. ANY ASSESSMENT SUBMITTED AFTERWARDS WILL ONLY BE USED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PROFESSOR.

The professor will then use the rating to assist in determining the allocation of marks to each student. The peer rating is used as a guide and each professor will exercise discretion in its use. (For example, should the team feel that one team member did not made a significant contribution and that member's final rating is below 50% overall (which would likely result in failure of the course) your professor will not accept this. Any team problems of this magnitude should have been raised directly with your professor much earlier in the course and resolved.

Finally, your professor may have some additional advice on how they intend to use the peer assessment approach. In the end, it is solely your professor’s right to assign grades, subject to the relevant University regulations.

Hope you find this guidance and the Peer Assessment useful.

Your Faculty Team
ITM 700/800

PEER ASSESSMENT OF TEAM PROJECT

Peer and Self-Evaluation

The following instrument will demand time and concentration if it is to be used effectively. Successful use will depend primarily on the willingness of the participants to examine individual contributions to the group. This willingness, in turn, comes from the commitment of group members to achieve their task objectives and a desire for more productive working relationships. There may be a tendency on the part of some participants to be favourable and polite in their first attempts at scoring the instrument or discussing the results. In order to help the other individuals and the group, each participant should approach the instrument with candor and careful consideration, realizing that constructive feedback will enhance group collaboration and advance the achievement of both personal and group goals.

On this kind of task there is an inclination to avoid the task by attacking the validity and usefulness of the instrument. There are limitations in the instrument. It would not be possible to design a perfect instrument for all groups and all situations even if we clearly understood teams and their functioning. If you want to make changes to the instrument, such as adding or deleting some items, or using your own weighting scheme (the current scheme has all 10 items weighted equally), please do so. If you want to make major changes to the instrument, please consult with your professor first.

There are four steps in developing your team’s peer evaluation.

1)On your own, complete an individual evaluation of yourself and your team members.

2)Next, work with your team mates to develop a consensus as to the overall scores of each team member. Since there are 10 categories, the maximum score a team member can be awarded is 100. However, in reality it is impossible for anyone to be that phenomenal. Your professor may challenge any evaluations that are very high or very low.

3)Now that you have achieved this, you are ready to record the scores on the official sheet to be handed in to the professor – but there are two separate scores to be reported:

a)To calculate the raw overall scores on the Peer Evaluation Sheet, just add up all 10 scores for the individual items. Record that number at the bottom of the matrix.

b)If your team is happy with the total score for each person, then you are done. However, you may feel that one or more of these scores doesn’t really reflect a particular teammate’s contribution. Since each category is equally weighted in the matrix, you may have trouble giving extra credit for an unbelievable effort put forth by a group member, or trouble deducting enough marks for someone whose efforts (or lack thereof) were truly detrimental to the team. The “Final Adjusted Score” allows you to do just that: adjust the score to give extra credit where it is due. The adjusted is recorded in the small table below the main matrix. You should include a short note (Post-It Notes are fine) to explain to the professor why that person’s score has been adjusted.

4)Finally, each member signs the sheet to indicate they have participated in the process. Note: Signing the sheet does not necessarily mean you agree with the final score assigned to you; it just means that you have participated in the process.

Remember: These points are to be distributed among the team members according to each member’s individual contribution to this project. Not all members of the group have to get the same letter grade. Since the scores are out of 100, you can easily determine whether you have rated a team mate as an A contributor or a D contributor. Your professor will do the necessary calculations to convert your scores into the corresponding marks on the team project and may adjust the weightings.

ITM 700/800

SUGGESTED TEAM ALLOCATION OF SCORES FOR TEAM PROJECT

COMPANY Name: ______

Project Team Member Names

Criteria (/10)

Interpersonal Skills
Quality of Communication
Inclusion
Maintenance
Collaboration
Involvement
Task Skills
Client Management and/or Data Gathering
Attendance and Punctuality at Team Meetings
Work Completed on Time
Quality of Analysis and Other Contributions
Quality of Writing, Editing and/or Coordination of Tasks
Raw Overall Score
(Total of above 10 items)

FINAL (ADJUSTED) SCORE

Scoring: 1-4 = Unsatisfactory5 = Passable6 = Fair7 = Good

8 = Very Good9 = Excellent10 = Absolutely Outstanding

**********************************************************************************

All team members must sign this form to ensure that everyone has had input into this process.

Signatures:

**********************************************************************************

ITM 700/800

PEER EVALUATION WORK SHEET

YOUR ASSESSMENT OF YOURSELF AND YOUR TEAM MATES

This worksheet is to record your own assessment of each team member. Do not hand in this worksheet. Combine the assessments from all team members onto the team form.

Project Team Member Names (Including Your Own)
Criteria (/10)
Interpersonal Skills
Quality of Communication (ability to clearly express ideas, and to actively listening and provide constructive feedback)
Inclusion (interest in other group members and effective interaction with other group members)
Maintenance (keeping harmony among group members in order to get the task done by giving socioemotional support, building trust and raising the status of others)
Collaboration (ability to work cooperatively with others, share input, and yield when necessary to group influence)
Involvement (willingness and interest to enter into the task, be active in the team, level of verbal and nonverbal excitement, active/passive)
Task Skills
Client Management and/or Data Gathering
Attendance and Punctuality at Team Meetings
Work Completed on Time
Quality of Analysis and Other Contributions
Quality of Writing, Editing and/or Coordination of Tasks
Overall Score (Total of above 10 items)

Scoring: 1-4 = Unsatisfactory 5 = Passable 6 = Fair 7 = Good 8 = Very Good 9 = Excellent 10 = Absolutely Outstanding