As per the syllabus (see below), please state the % of the team deliverable grade each team member (including yourself) should receive based upon each team member’s contribution. Please submit by putting in the comments–there is no need to upload a document. Evaluations are due by midnight, Wednesday, 4/29/30.  Not submitting an evaluation indicates that you agree with the consensus of those who did submit evaluations (i.e., the default is not 100% to all members).

Team Member Evaluations

Guidelines for Working in Groups (from syllabus):  The team deliverable will receive one grade.  Each individual team member’s final grades for the team assignment is then subject to any adjustment deemed warranted by the confidential evaluations of their teammates: Each student will submit a semester-end evaluation of each team members’ (including their own) contribution to me.  Evaluations are confidential and should be guided by the team’s “pact”.

More specifically, I require each team to come up with a set of rules, or “pact”, which will govern their group. The only stipulation is that it must be a consensus decision and all team members must sign the list of criteria before I will accept it.  This pact should be viewed as a “living” document in that you may change the rules as necessary throughout the term, as long as the change is a consensus decision, is put in writing, and everyone signs off on the new document.

Based upon this pact, at the end of the semester each member will rate their fellow team members by assigning to them the % of the team’s score warranted by the member’s contribution.  Any deviations from 100% require an explanation.  Ratings can be < or > than 100%.  The only way that I will recognize > 100% is if someone else gets < 100% (i.e. this is a zero-sum method).  A rating of < .8 is only possible if the team member in question was formally confronted (e.g., in writing) in a manner that both specifies the problem and potential remedial action required and allows sufficient time to enact it.  To calculate each team members’ final scores, I will use the average of all team member %ages to adjust each individual’s analysis scores.  For example, Team A consists of 5 members and receives a score of 90 on their team final project.  Team members 1 through 3 all receive a rating of 100% from all team members, team member 4 receives an average rating of 110%, and team member 5 receives an average rating of 90% (i.e. team member 4 clearly picked up the “slack” for team member 5).  The final scores received by each group member would be as follows:

Team member            Power Analysis

1 – 3                             90   (90 * 1.0)

4                                  99   (90 * 1.1)

5                                  81   (90 * .90)

Integrity: every team member is expected to participate fully in the group assignments.  Also, it is expected that any and all deviances are confronted and handled through the team member evaluations.  That is, those who don’t contribute fully shall get less than 100% of the team score and those who contribute more than their fair share (i.e., to make up for the shirker) will get more than 100% of the team score.  Furthermore, the expectation is that team members will make responsible attempts to communicate with the problem team member(s) and to attempt to rectify the situation before it gets out of hand.  Confrontation works best if it is early and often.  In all cases, I am available to help if needed.  At the end of the semester, no one should be surprised by the final score they receive.  Furthermore, this all means that including a team member’s name that under (over) contributed on the assignment without giving the requisite evaluation is a breach of academic integrity.  Finally, it is each team member’s responsibility to ensure that the final product adheres to academic integrity