Peer Evaluations

Individual, one survey with one page per team member·Every term·25% of each term's grade

• Midterm SurveySent week 5, closes week 6·5%·Rubric
• End-of-Term SurveySent week 9, closes week 10·20%·Rubric
• End-of-Term Survey (CATME)Sent week 9, closes week 10·20%·Rubric

Teammates see only their own scores, never your comments.

No late window: the survey can't be submitted after it closes.

Peer evaluations are how you evaluate the contributions of your teammates, and they evaluate yours. The midterm survey is a pulse check and an early-warning channel; the end-of-term survey carries real weight.

Both surveys compute your score from your teammates’ ratings, and the instructors review the results before any score stands. The midterm survey every term and the end-of-term survey in fall and winter use four criteria and a 100-point distribution; the end-of-term survey in spring is the CATME survey, with a rubric of its own.

Caution

If you don’t complete a survey, you score a flat 50 out of 100 on that survey’s entry, whatever ratings your teammates gave you. Completing means submitting the survey, every required question answered, before it closes.

Your comments go to the instructors only. Each teammate sees only their own scores, averaged over everyone who rated them, with no rating labeled by who gave it. When only one teammate’s answers count, on a team of two or when the others don’t submit, the scores are that teammate’s ratings (see Teams of Two). Questions about grades go to the instructors directly.

The Per-Term Instrument

In every midterm survey, and in the end-of-term survey in fall and winter, you assess yourself and your teammates on four criteria, then allocate 100 points across all team members including yourself, and finally give qualitative feedback. The instrument, its scale, and the scoring below follow Gardner et al. [2].

Quantitative Questions

The first task is to rate each member of the team, including yourself, one page per member, on these criteria:

The criteria you rate each member on

Criterion	The survey asks
Quantity	Did the member do an appropriate quantity of work?
Quality	How about the quality of the member's work?
Attitude as a team player	Rate the member's attitude as a team player (eager to do assigned work, communicated with others, kept appointments, etc.).
Technical value	Rate the overall value of the member's technical contribution.

Each rating uses a 1 to 5 scale, the same for every criterion:

• 1: Better off without the member, in this regard.
• 2: Some obvious shortcomings.
• 3: OK, but nothing special.
• 4: Good solid effort; took initiative.
• 5: Outstanding: a super asset to the team.

The numbers only compare across teams if everyone means the same thing by them. This is what each rating looks like; rate the term, not the last week.

Criterion	A 5 looks like	A 3 looks like	A 1 looks like
Quantity	Took a fair share every sprint and picked up slack when someone was blocked; the contribution line in every sprint note names work they owned.	Did what was assigned, on time, most sprints; nothing beyond it.	Contribution lines empty, or written by a teammate on their behalf, as a pattern.
Quality	Their work is accepted after few review rounds, code arrives with tests, and nothing is reopened as a bug.	Work passes review after the normal back-and-forth.	Work is redone by others, or ships without tests and breaks things.
Attitude as a team player	At every meeting they did not excuse in advance, on time; answers messages within one working day; volunteers for unowned work; says early when blocked.	Attends, responds within two working days, does what is asked when asked.	Misses meetings without notice, goes quiet for days, and teammates have stopped assigning them work.
Technical value	Owns a part of the system others depend on, and the team asks them when it breaks.	Contributes working pieces that fit; nothing of theirs is called or imported by others’ work.	No technical contribution the team can point to.

Check before you rate. Open the sprint notes and look for the contribution line each sprint; open the repository and the team’s tracker and count the work each person owned, reviews given, and issues closed; think back over who was at the meetings. A rating you cannot connect to something you saw is a guess, and the instructor reads the comments against the same record (NDA teams: at the walkthrough or the defense).

For the second task, you distribute 100 points among team members, including yourself. Each member can receive between 0 and 100, and the survey does not submit until the total is 100. Give yourself at least 100/N points, rounded down, where N is the number of team members; the survey shows your minimum. A self share below the minimum is raised to it, and your teammates’ shares are scaled down so the total stays 100. A team of two has no minimum (see Teams of Two).

Qualitative Feedback

You’re also asked for comments, which help the instructors understand team dynamics:

• On each member’s page, anything about that member’s contribution the instructors should know.
• For particularly high or low allocations, provide concrete examples. Which behaviors were particularly valuable or detrimental?
• Overall, how effectively is your team working? Explain.
• To close the midterm survey: Propose one concrete team experiment or activity to try in the next sprint.
• To close the end-of-term survey in fall and winter: What did you learn about working in a team that you will carry into the next term?

Team Sizes

The survey and the score work for any team of up to 10 members, yourself included (For Students has how teams are formed). The score calculation below is normalized around a team of five and explicitly corrects for team size; it is applied identically to every team size.

Grade Calculation

For the four criteria:

1. Convert ratings to a 50-100 scale: 1 = 50, 2 = 62.5, 3 = 75, 4 = 87.5, 5 = 100.
2. Average the ratings each member received, excluding self-ratings.

For the 100-point distribution:

1. Verify that each rater’s total is 100, which the survey enforces, and raise a self-allocation below 100/N points, rounded down, to that floor, scaling the rater’s other allocations so the total stays 100 (a team of two has no floor; see Teams of Two).
2. Average the points each member received, excluding self-allocation.
3. Normalize for team size: multiply the average by N, divide by 5.
4. Clamp the result to [10, 40].
5. Apply $0.65 + 0.0225\cdot x - 0.00025\cdot x^2$, where $x$ is the clamped average.

The formula’s output is a multiplier bounded between 0.85 and 1.15; multiply it by 100 to get the distribution score (85 to 115). Scoring over 100 means teammates rated your contribution above an equal share, and you are rewarded for it.

The final peer score is the average of five numbers: the four criteria scores and the distribution score.

Worked example, team of 4: teammates’ ratings average to 4, 4, 5, 4 on the four criteria, converting to 87.5, 87.5, 100, 87.5. On the distribution, your teammates gave you an average of 28 points; normalized for team size (× 4 ÷ 5) that is 22.4, within the [10, 40] clamp; the formula gives 0.65 + 0.0225(22.4) − 0.00025(22.4²) = 1.03, so the distribution score is 103. Final peer score: (87.5 + 87.5 + 100 + 87.5 + 103) / 5 = 93.1.

Instructor Review

The instructors review each survey’s results before any score stands, checking with your Teaching Assistant (TA) when they need more context. They look closer at a score that stands out: for example, a score well below your teammates’, a team well below the others, a score resting on one teammate’s ratings, or a score well below your earlier ones.

A review can raise or lower a score as far as the record supports, down to zero. The reason you get cites the record, never a rater or a comment.

Teams of Two

On a team of two, every score you receive comes from your one teammate, so your scores show the ratings and points they gave you, and theirs show what you gave them. On the four-criteria survey, there is no self-allocation floor: an even split is 50 points each.

The CATME Survey

The end-of-term survey in spring replaces the four criteria and the 100-point distribution with CATME, the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness [1], [3], [4]. You rate yourself and each teammate on five dimensions: Contributing to the Team’s Work, Interacting with Teammates, Keeping the Team on Track, Expecting Quality, and Having Relevant Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities.

Each dimension describes the behaviors of a 5, a 3, and a 1 [1, App. B]. Rate a 4 when a teammate shows behaviors from both the 3 and the 5, and a 2 when they show behaviors from both the 1 and the 3. The descriptions are in the rubric; read them before you rate, and connect each rating to something in the record: the sprint notes, the repository, the tracker, and the meetings. The survey also asks for a comment on each teammate and on how the team is working.

The score comes from the ratings alone:

1. For each dimension, average the ratings you received, excluding your self-rating.
2. Convert each average to the 50-100 scale, which differs from the four criteria’s: 1 = 50, 2 = 67.5, 3 = 85, 4 = 92.5, 5 = 100, with an average between two ratings scoring between them.
3. Your score is the mean of the five converted averages. With no distribution, the maximum is 100.

The completion penalty and the instructor review apply as they do to every other survey.

What You Submit

Nothing to upload: you answer each Qualtrics survey from the link sent by email, before it closes; it is not reopened.

Rubric

The rubric is the calculation above in points for the midterm survey every term and the end-of-term survey in fall and winter: each of the five numbers is worth 20 points, a fifth of its value. If you didn’t complete the survey, you score 50 in place of the rubric score.

Rubric: 100 points across 5 criteria

Criterion	Ratings
QuantityYour teammates' average rating of whether you did an appropriate quantity of work, self-ratings excluded. An average between two ratings scores between their points.20 points	Average of 5 (20)Outstanding: a super asset to the team. Average of 4 (17.5)Good solid effort; took initiative. Average of 3 (15)OK, but nothing special. Average of 2 (12.5)Some obvious shortcomings. Average of 1 (10)Better off without the member, in this regard.
QualityYour teammates' average rating of the quality of your work, self-ratings excluded. An average between two ratings scores between their points.20 points	Average of 5 (20)Outstanding: a super asset to the team. Average of 4 (17.5)Good solid effort; took initiative. Average of 3 (15)OK, but nothing special. Average of 2 (12.5)Some obvious shortcomings. Average of 1 (10)Better off without the member, in this regard.
Attitude as a team playerYour teammates' average rating of your attitude as a team player (eager to do assigned work, communicated with others, kept appointments), self-ratings excluded. An average between two ratings scores between their points.20 pointsOutcomes: SO5	Average of 5 (20)Outstanding: a super asset to the team. Average of 4 (17.5)Good solid effort; took initiative. Average of 3 (15)OK, but nothing special. Average of 2 (12.5)Some obvious shortcomings. Average of 1 (10)Better off without the member, in this regard.
Technical valueYour teammates' average rating of the overall value of your technical contribution, self-ratings excluded. An average between two ratings scores between their points.20 points	Average of 5 (20)Outstanding: a super asset to the team. Average of 4 (17.5)Good solid effort; took initiative. Average of 3 (15)OK, but nothing special. Average of 2 (12.5)Some obvious shortcomings. Average of 1 (10)Better off without the member, in this regard.
Point distributionThe average share of the 100 points your teammates gave you, self-allocation excluded, normalized for team size (times N, divided by 5).20 pointsOutcomes: SO5	Equal share or more (20)A normalized average of 20 earns the 20 points, rising to 23 at 40 or more. The points above 20 are added to the posted grade, which can exceed 100. Less than an equal share (17)Below a normalized average of 20 the points fall toward 17, reached at 10 or less.

End-of-Term Survey (CATME)

Each of the five dimension scores is worth 20 points, a fifth of its value. If you didn’t complete the survey, you score 50 in place of the rubric score.

Rubric: 100 points across 5 criteria

Criterion	Ratings
Contributing to the Team's WorkYour teammates' average rating of your contribution to the team's work, self-ratings excluded. An average between two ratings scores between their points.20 points	Average of 5 (20)Does more or higher-quality work than expected. Makes important contributions that improve the team's work. Helps to complete the work of teammates who are having difficulty. Average of 4 (18.5)Demonstrates behaviors described in both 3 and 5. Average of 3 (17)Completes a fair share of the team's work with acceptable quality. Keeps commitments and completes assignments on time. Fills in for teammates when it is easy or important. Average of 2 (13.5)Demonstrates behaviors described in both 1 and 3. Average of 1 (10)Does not do a fair share of the team's work. Delivers sloppy or incomplete work. Misses deadlines. Is late, unprepared, or absent for team meetings. Does not assist teammates. Quits if the work becomes difficult.
Interacting with TeammatesYour teammates' average rating of how you interact with them, self-ratings excluded. An average between two ratings scores between their points.20 pointsOutcomes: SO5	Average of 5 (20)Asks for and shows an interest in teammates' ideas and contributions. Improves communication among teammates. Provides encouragement or enthusiasm to the team. Asks teammates for feedback and uses their suggestions to improve. Average of 4 (18.5)Demonstrates behaviors described in both 3 and 5. Average of 3 (17)Listens to teammates and respects their contributions. Communicates clearly. Shares information with teammates. Participates fully in team activities. Respects and responds to feedback from teammates. Average of 2 (13.5)Demonstrates behaviors described in both 1 and 3. Average of 1 (10)Interrupts, ignores, bosses, or makes fun of teammates. Takes actions that affect teammates without their input. Does not share information. Complains, makes excuses, or does not interact with teammates. Accepts no help or advice.
Keeping the Team on TrackYour teammates' average rating of how you keep the team on track, self-ratings excluded. An average between two ratings scores between their points.20 pointsOutcomes: SO5	Average of 5 (20)Watches conditions affecting the team and monitors the team's progress. Makes sure that teammates are making appropriate progress. Gives teammates specific, timely, and constructive feedback. Average of 4 (18.5)Demonstrates behaviors described in both 3 and 5. Average of 3 (17)Notices changes that influence the team's success. Knows what everyone on the team should be doing and notices problems. Alerts teammates or suggests solutions when the team's success is threatened. Average of 2 (13.5)Demonstrates behaviors described in both 1 and 3. Average of 1 (10)Is unaware of whether the team is meeting its goals. Does not pay attention to teammates' progress. Avoids discussing team problems, even when they are obvious.
Expecting QualityYour teammates' average rating of the standard you hold the team's work to, self-ratings excluded. An average between two ratings scores between their points.20 points	Average of 5 (20)Motivates the team to do excellent work. Cares that the team does outstanding work, even if there is no additional reward. Believes that the team can do excellent work. Average of 4 (18.5)Demonstrates behaviors described in both 3 and 5. Average of 3 (17)Encourages the team to do good work that meets all requirements. Wants the team to perform well enough to earn all available rewards. Believes that the team can fully meet its responsibilities. Average of 2 (13.5)Demonstrates behaviors described in both 1 and 3. Average of 1 (10)Satisfied even if the team does not meet assigned standards. Wants the team to avoid work, even if it hurts the team. Doubts that the team can meet its requirements.
Having Relevant Knowledge, Skills, and AbilitiesYour teammates' average rating of the knowledge, skills, and abilities you bring to the project, self-ratings excluded. An average between two ratings scores between their points.20 points	Average of 5 (20)Demonstrates the knowledge, skills, and abilities to do excellent work. Acquires new knowledge or skills to improve the team's performance. Able to perform the role of any team member if necessary. Average of 4 (18.5)Demonstrates behaviors described in both 3 and 5. Average of 3 (17)Has sufficient knowledge, skills, and abilities to contribute to the team's work. Acquires knowledge or skills needed to meet requirements. Able to perform some of the tasks normally done by other team members. Average of 2 (13.5)Demonstrates behaviors described in both 1 and 3. Average of 1 (10)Missing basic qualifications needed to be a member of the team. Unable or unwilling to develop knowledge or skills to contribute to the team. Unable to perform any of the duties of other team members.

Activities That Prepare This

• Regular Stand-Up Meetings: Quantity and Attitude as a team player, or Contributing to the Team’s Work and Interacting with Teammates in CATME; the habit that makes contribution visible every week.
• Team Dysfunctions Assessment: Attitude as a team player, or Interacting with Teammates in CATME, and the midterm comments; naming a problem before the survey does.
• Team Health Assessment: the four criteria in the spring midterm survey, and the CATME dimensions in the spring end-of-term survey.

Browse Team and Workflow when these run out.

References

[1] M. W. Ohland et al., “The Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness: Development of a Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scale for Self- and Peer Evaluation,” AMLE, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 609-630, Dec. 2012, doi: 10.5465/amle.2010.0177.

[2] “Fairly Assessing Individual Contributions to Group Software Projects.” Accessed: Mar. 31, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.cs.ubc.ca/wccce/Program03/papers/Gardner-Group/Gardner-Group.htm

[3] M. L. Loughry, M. W. Ohland, and D. D. Moore, “Development of a Theory-Based Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 505-524, 2007, doi: 10.1177/0013164406292085.

[4] M. L. Loughry, M. W. Ohland, and D. J. Woehr, “Assessing Teamwork Skills for Assurance of Learning Using CATME Team Tools,” Journal of Marketing Education, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 5-19, 2014, doi: 10.1177/0273475313499023.