Peer Evaluation Form for Group Work

This peer assessment has been discussed by the group and upon agreement we have decided that the results from
each peer assessment should reflect everyone grade.

Your name __Dave Oude Vrielink________________________________________________

Write the name of each of your group members in a separate column. For each person, indicate the extent to which you agree
with the statement on the left, using a scale of 1-4 (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree). Total the
numbers in each column.

Evaluation Criteria Group member: Group member: Group member: Group member:
Piter Jakob Xander Rhys Eva

Attends group meetings regularly 3 3 4 4

and arrives on time.

Contributes meaningfully to group 3 3 3 3

discussions.

Completes group assignments on 4 3 4 4

time.

Prepares work in a quality 3 3 4 4

manner.

Demonstrates a cooperative and 2 2 4 4

supportive attitude.
 Contributes significantly to the 2 2 4 4
success of the project.

TOTALS 17 16 23 23

Feedback on team dynamics:

1. How effectively did your group work?

The group didn’t really work together. Rhys and Eva did most of the work and didn’t really involve Piter Jakob, Xander and
Dave in what their where doing. Also Piter Jakob, Xander and Dave didn’t show much self-initiative. So it was a combination
between lack of self-initiative and leadership. If Piter, Xander and Dave showed more self-initiative the group would have
worked together way better. In the last week the group worked better together. Everyone showed more self-initiative.

2. Were the behaviors of any of your team members particularly valuable or detrimental to the team? Explain.

Eva: Her overview was really valuable for the team. If she didn’t know what to do the group would be lost as well. However
Eva could improve communication about the overview she has. This way the group would know better what to do.
Rhys: Rhys is really hard working. He and Eva get along very good. Which is why he also knows what to do. Rhys has really
great ideas and gets tasks done fast with great quality.
Xander and Piter both did what needed to be done when given a task by Eva.

3. What did you learn about working in a group from this project that you will carry into your next group experience?

Communication is the key to success within a team. When the communication is bad in a team and people notice this. The team
needs to have a conversation fast to help this problem.

Adapted from a peer evaluation form developed at Johns Hopkins University (October, 2006)
 Peer Evaluation Form for Group Work

Your name: Rhys Williams

This is the first peer evaluation of two in which will be written. This peer assessment was written mid project and has been separated
in to two sections. The first section is a scoring system which indicates the evaluation for 6 different statements. The scoring system
for each person, indicates the extent to which you agree with the statement on the left, using a scale of 1-4 (1=strongly disagree;
2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree). The score at the bottom of each column is the total average. The second part is an analysis
on team dynamics.

Evaluation Criteria Group member: Group member: Group member: Group member:
Dave Oude Vrielink Xander Houdijk Piter Jakob Bosgraaf Eva Finken
Attends group meetings 2 2 2 4
regularly and arrives on time.
Contributes meaningfully to 1 1 1 4
group discussions.
Completes group 1 1 1 4
assignments on time.
Prepares work in a quality 1 2 2 4
manner.
Demonstrates a cooperative 3 2 2 4
and supportive attitude.
Contributes significantly to 1 2 2 4
the success of the project.
TOTALS 9 9 9 24

1. How effectively did your group work?

This group project follows on from the following semester Vital cities Block 1. The groups efficiency, cooperation and work ethic had
a considerable change. The group didn’t work well as a team with no clear roles and responsibilities. Another problem was the lack of
attention by group members within the class room which effectively left work on others shoulder and did not allow for group m embers
initiative as the lack of knowledge about each process.

I would note that as a team the motivation to listen in class and come up with clear plans as a team needs to be established
otherwise the projects process will be much harder than It needs to be.

2. Were the behaviors of any of your team members particularly valuable or detrimental to the team? Explain.
I would start by saying how Eva’s contribution within the project provided great value in the project, always willing and taking the
initiative to complete/ work on tasks and in an innovative way.
I would then say that I feel the rest of the team weighed on the back of this as they did not know how to complete the tasks.
The majority of the groups lack of self-initiative caused Eva and I taking upon a large proportion of the projects tasks.

3. What did you learn about working in a group from this project that you will carry into your next group experience?
My view on group work has known changed and my approach in the future will take a different direction. I will firstly try and create a
professional barrier between social and working life. Allowing myself to give responsibility to others and also share my frustration’s
publicly within the group. I would create a group contract highlighting the disciplinary points if the group or an individual don’t
contribute to the project.

Adapted from a peer evaluation form developed at Johns Hopkins University (October, 2006)

Peer Evaluation Form for Group Work

Your name: Piter Jakob Bosgraaf

Write the name of each of your group members in a separate column. For each person, indicate the extent to which you agree
with the statement on the left, using a scale of 1-4 (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree). Total the
numbers in each column.

Evaluation Criteria Group member: Group member: Group member: Group member:
Rhys Williams Dave Oude Vrielink Xander Houdijk Eva Finken
 Attends group 4 3 3 4
meetings regularly and
arrives on time.

Contributes 4 3 2 4
meaningfully to group
discussions.

Completes group 4 3 3 4
assignments on time.

Prepares work in a 4 3 3 4
quality manner.

Demonstrates a 3 2 2 3
cooperative and
supportive attitude.

Contributes 4 2 2 4
significantly to the
success of the project.

TOTALS 23/24 21/24 10/24 23/24

Feedback on team dynamics:

1. How effectively did your group work?

Totally not effectively. We didn’t work as a team and there was not an atmosphere within the team. It was a mix of lack of
leadership and a lack of self-initiative. If the leader (Eva) had taken the group in to the project together with more self-
initiative of the Dutch boys we would have saved ourselves a lot of trouble. I wasn’t there the last week of the project because I
was in Austria for my Level 2 ski-teacher course. I asked several times if I could do something in the last week for the project
and the answer every time was no. In general I showed a lack of self-initiative.

2. Were the behaviors of any of your team members particularly valuable or detrimental to the team? Explain.

Some group members seemed to put more effort into the project as others. Rhys was a very hard worker but really
headstrong. Eva seemed to be the leader but didn’t show that much leadership-initiative. Besides that she is a very hard
worker and really confident about her work. Rhys and Eva did a lot on their own and didn’t communicate with the others.
Xander and Dave didn’t’ show that much self-initiative and were most of the time busy with other things and class (same as
me).

3. What did you learn about working in a group from this project that you will carry into your next group experience?

Communication is the key to success.

Adapted from a peer evaluation form developed at Johns Hopkins University (October, 2006)

Peer Evaluation Form for Group Work

Your name: Eva Finken

Write the name of each of your group members in a separate column. For each person, indicate the extent to which you agree with the statement on the
left, using a scale of 1-4 (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree). Total the numbers in each column.

Evaluation Criteria Group member: Group member: Group member: Group member:
Rhys Williams Dave Oude Vrielink Xander Houdijk Piter Jakob Bosgraaf

Attends group 4 2 2 2
meetings regularly and
arrives on time.
 Contributes 4 1 1 1
meaningfully to group
discussions.

Completes group 4 1 1 1
assignments on time.

Prepares work in a 4 1 1 1
quality manner.

Demonstrates a 4 2 2 2
cooperative and
supportive attitude.

Contributes 4 1 1 1
significantly to the
success of the project.

TOTALS 24/24 8/24 8/24 8/24

Feedback on team dynamics:

1. How effectively did your group work?

Our group did not work effectively at all, because we did not work as a group. Due to the frequent absence of certain group members, the project
became more of a partner work (which in turn went very well).

2. Were the behaviors of any of your team members particularly valuable or detrimental to the team? Explain.

As mentioned above, almost all work was done by two of the group members, who were Rhys and I. Therefore I want to mention that Rhys´ behavior
was particularly valuable. He put much effort in everything he did and his work was always of high quality.
The others - Xander, Dave and Piter – I unfortunately have to mention as members, who were particularly detrimental to the team. I do not want to
blame them or attack them as a person, but – as sorry for me – there is hardly anything positive to say. All of them missed many classes and if they were
present, it was limited to their physical presence, mentally they mostly seemed to be somewhere else. This caused them to miss important explanations
and feedbacks of the teachers, which resulted in them not being able to contribute to the project. Therefore all work was carried out by Rhys and me.

3. What did you learn about working in a group from this project that you will carry into your next group experience?

Group work depends very much on the group members. Unfortunately often there is no fair share of work, as the member´s attitudes towards the
importance of the projects differ. In future I maybe should try to address that problem more open and ask to have feedback sessions within the group to
discuss each member´s working manner and what needs to be changed. If that does not work, as it was the case in our group, it would be better to not
hesitate to inform teachers about the situation sooner and try to find solutions with them, instead of being silent and take all the work, just because you
don´t want to blame your group members/friends.

Adapted from a peer evaluation form developed at Johns Hopkins University (October, 2006)
 Peer Evaluation Form for Group Work

Your name __Xander________________________________________________

Write the name of each of your group members in a separate column. For each person, indicate the extent to which you agree
with the statement on the left, using a scale of 1-4 (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=agree; 4=strongly agree). Total the
numbers in each column.

Evaluation Criteria Group member: Group member: Group member: Group member:
Piter Jakob Dave Rhys Eva

Attends group 3 3 4 4
meetings regularly and
arrives on time.

Contributes 3 3 3 3
meaningfully to group
discussions.

Completes group 4 2 4 4
assignments on time.

Prepares work in a 3 3 3 4
quality manner.

Demonstrates a 2 2 4 4
cooperative and
supportive attitude.

Contributes 2 2 4 4
significantly to the
success of the project.
 TOTALS 17 15 22 23

Feedback on team dynamics:

1. How effectively did your group work?

The group did not really work together. It was a mix of lack of leadership and a lack of self-initiative. If the leader (Eva) had
taken the group in to the project together with more self-initiative of the Dutch boys we would have saved ourselves a lot of
trouble. Just in the last week I finally had the feeling that we were working together and that the tasks were divided equally.

2. Were the behaviors of any of your team members particularly valuable or detrimental to the team? Explain.

Eva has a lot of overview for herself. It helps her getting the project on the rails, but she doesn’t communicate about her
strategy or plan.
Rhys is a real working horse. Comes up with ideas and works them out pretty well. One downside: he has a plan and it will go
by his plan and not differently.
Dave: Coming late to class doesn’t help the groupprocess.
Piter Jakob: Coming late to class doesn’t help the groupprocess.

3. What did you learn about working in a group from this project that you will carry into your next group experience?
Communication is a key item. Everything is influenced by proper or bad communication.

Adapted from a peer evaluation form developed at Johns Hopkins University (October, 2006)