Marketing Group Case Study

Peer Evaluation – Marking Criteria and Standards

DO NOT submit this page

Scores for each Standard

Criteria 1 (UNACCEPTABLE) 2 (UNSATISFACTORY) 3 (BELOW 4 (EXPECTED) 5 (ABOVE
Quality of Work: Produces Occasionally produces EXPECTED)
Meets minimum group Regularly produces EXPECTED)
Produces work that
Consider the degree to unacceptable work, work that meets or project work that meets consistently exceeds
which the individual fails to meet minimum group or requirements. minimum established group or
provides work that is minimum group or project requirements. requirements and project requirements.
accurate and complete. project sometimes exceeds
requirements. project or group
requirements.
Timeliness of Work: Fails to meet Occasionally misses Regularly meets Consistently meets Consistently
Consider the individual's deadlines set by deadlines set by group. deadlines set by deadlines set by completes work
timeliness of work. group. group. group and ahead of schedule.
occasionally
completes work
ahead of schedule.
Task Support: Gives no task support Sometimes gives task Occasionally provides Consistently provides Consistently gives
Consider the amount of to other members. support to other task support to other task support to other more task support
task support the members. group members. group members. than expected.
individual gives to other
group members.
Interaction: Consider Behaviour is Behaviour is Regularly projects Consistently Consistently
how the individual detrimental to inconsistent and appropriate group demonstrates demonstrates
relates and group. occasionally distracts behaviour including: appropriate group exemplary group
communicates to other group meetings. listening to others, behaviour. behaviour.
group members. and allowing his/her
ideas to be criticised.
Attendance: Failed to attend the Attended 1%-40% of Attended 41%-80% Attended 81%-99% Attended 100% of the
Attendance to Group group meetings. the group meetings. of the group of the group group meetings.
Meetings. meetings. meetings.

Responsibility: Consider Is unwilling to carry Sometimes carries out Carries out assigned Consistently carries Consistently carries
the ability of the individual out assigned tasks. assigned tasks but tasks but never out assigned tasks out assigned tasks
to carry out a chosen or never volunteers to do volunteers to do a and occasionally and always
assigned task, the degree a task. task. volunteers for other volunteers for other
to which the student can tasks. tasks.
be relied upon to
complete a task.
Involvement: Consider Fails to participate Sometimes participates Takes part in group Regularly participates Consistently exceeds
the extent to which the in group discussions in group discussions discussions and in group discussion group expectations
individual participates in and fails to share and rarely contributes shares relevant and sometimes for participation and
the exchange of relevant material. relevant material for information. exceeds consistently
information (brings the project. expectations. contributes relevant
knowledge to group). material to project.

Leadership: Consider Does not display Displays minimal Occasionally Regularly displays Consistently
how the group member leadership skills. leadership skills in assumes leadership good leadership demonstrates
engages in leadership group. role. skills. exemplary leadership
activities. skills.
Overall Performance Performance Performance fails to Performance meets all Performance meets Performance
Rating: Consider the significantly fails to meet some group group requirements. all group consistently exceeds
overall performance of meet group requirements. requirements all group
the individual while in requirements. consistently and requirements.
the group. sometimes exceeds
requirements.

Note: As a result of this peer evaluation if an individual student mark modification is necessary, then a revised lower mark
for a particular student will be emailed by the Unit Coordinator during weeks 15/16.
Peer Evaluation – Case study
(Submit this page and any subsequent pages)

Your Group Name:

WEIGHTING: A group member will receive a revised lower group mark due to their group inaction, as reflected by the low scores given
in grid below.

RESPONSIBILITY: Assigning scores to peers is a serious responsibility as it can have a powerful impact on an individual. Scores
should be assigned objectively, honestly and according to each individual's contribution to the group.
NOTE: The unit coordinator reserves the right to review peer evaluations. Overly harsh evaluations (i.e. 1 & 2) may be revised /rejected
by the unit coordinator.
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Fill out the evaluation form listed below for all of your group members. Make sure to include yourself.
2. For each of the 9 categories, enter the appropriate score (1 to 5 using the criteria and standards provided on the previous page).
E.g. a score of 4 indicates that you believe the individual contributed FULLY and as EXPECTED to the group project. Repeat this
for each group member. In making your evaluations:
- Disregard your general impressions and concentrate on one criterion at a time.
- Study carefully the definition given for each criterion and the standards for each level of the criteria.
- Call to mind instances that are typical of the individual’s work and behaviour. Do not be influenced by unusual cases that are
not typical.
3. Comments must be used to support your ratings.
4. List all of the tasks you completed for the project. In other words, what specifically did you contribute to the group effort?
Attendance to meetings

Timeliness of work

Quality of work

Overall Project
Responsibility
Task support

Involvement

Leadership
Interaction

Group Members Names

Student ID (please remember to include yourself)

List below the specific tasks each of you completed for the project – (continue on subsequent page/s if space is not
sufficient):

General Comments - you must explain why you have given scores that are “1 or 2” - (continue on subsequent page/s if
space is not sufficient):