M1 Teammate Reviews
Instructions
After the Milestone M1 submission is completed, each team member must provide a teammate review of each other team member’s performance during the iteration. An online form for performing these teammate evaluations will be shared to students near the end of the iteration.
What the Various Ratings Mean
On the teammate review form, you will have to rate each of your teammates (as well as yourself) based on a multiple-choice, scale from Terrible to Excellent. The precise meaning of each option may not be obvious, so here are detailed definitions for each to help you in making the right selection.
Productivity and Contribution Ratings for Milestone M1:
| Rating |
Meaning |
| Terrible |
Teammate contributed nothing (or almost nothing) to the project for Milestone M1. |
| Poor |
Teammate contributed something for Milestone M1, but it was clearly below expectations in terms of quantity and/or quality. |
| Acceptable |
Teammate contributed the bare minimum for Milestone M1. They were generally responsible in completing their tasks, but they are definitely not impressing anyone with their work. |
| Good |
Teammate did a very nice job in completing their tasks for Milestone M1. You are pleased with their contributions. |
| Excellent |
Teammate clearly went above and beyond what was expected in a significant way for Milestone M1. |
Communication and Professionalism Ratings for Milestone M1:
| Rating |
Meaning |
| Terrible |
This rating indicates extremely bad communication and professionalism for Milestone M1. A teammate with this score may have engaged in little or no communication, missing all or almost all meetings. Alternatively, they may have displayed highly offensive and counterproductive behaviors in how they treat fellow teammates. |
| Poor |
This rating points to serious issues with communication and professionalism for Milestone M1. A teammate with this score may be engaging in some communication, but it is really an inadequate amount. They may be frequently late to meetings, or not participate well during them. They may display inappropriate or disrespectful behaviors in how they treat fellow teammates. |
| Acceptable |
Teammate displays the bare minimum for acceptable communication and professionalism for Milestone M1. They have occasional lapses—for example, being late for meetings and/or disengaged from the team—but is doing just enough right to prevent it from being a problem. |
| Good |
Teammate did a very nice job with communication and professionalism for Milestone M1. You are pleased with how well they communicated and how professionally they behaved. |
| Excellent |
Teammate clearly went above and beyond when it comes to communication and professionalism for Milestone M1. |
How to Provide a High-Quality Review
Here are some key criteria to keep in mind when providing your reviews:
- Be Honest. Avoid inflating or deflating a teammate’s score when applying the above standard. For example, You should typically only score one or two teammates as Excellent. Otherwise, it will probably look like you’re not giving an honest, high-quality review.
- Comments Required for Certain Ratings. If you give a teammate a score of Terrible, Poor, or Excellent, you must give specific, detailed comments describing the events and/or pattern of behavior that led to this score.
- Focus on Observable Facts. When you provide comments, focus on facts that are or were somehow observable—”Just the facts, ma’am.” Do not attempt to mind read or hurl insults. For example, don’t call a teammate “lazy” (which is tantamount to mind reading). Instead, describe what was expected of the teammate and the ways they failed to meet that expectation.
- Refer to the PR Plans and Outcomes. The individual task plans and outcomes provide a great way to establish what was expected of a teammate. Use them in justifying whether a teammate did more or less than what was expected.
- Positive Comments Appreciated. Feedback has a tendency to focus on the negative; however, it is also quite good to share when teammates are doing things right.
- More Is More. Thorough comments show that you are going out of your way to provide a high-quality review. The more you can say the better.
How the Reviews Will be Used
Here are some key ways that the reviews will (and will not) be used:
- Hints to the Instructor. The instructor will use the reviews to be aware of possible issues on the team and to clarify what happened during the iteration. For example, when the instructor reviews the task-outcome and pull-request data for an iteration, the review comments may help explain why the data look the way they do.
- Scores ≠ Grades. The instructor will NOT translate any of the scores you give your teammates directly into grades. Grades in the course are based on an independent assessment of the work that students produce and are in no way affected by the opinions of teammates. Thus, for example, if you honestly think that a teammate deserves a negative score, you can give them that score without any feelings of guilt that your score will hurt their grade in the course.
- Kept Confidential. All scores and comments will be kept confidential. If a score/comment reveals an issue that might be good to discuss with the team, the instructor will first discuss it with the person who reported the score/comment to make sure that it is discussed in a way that they are comfortable with. If they do not wish for their comment to be discussed with the team, the instructor will respect their wishes.
Grading Rubric
- High-Pass:
- All required reviews were submitted on time.
- All are deemed to be acceptable quality.
- Low-Pass: Failed to meet requirements for High-Pass, but was corrected by the specified deadline for making corrections.
- Fail: Failed to meet requirements for Low-Pass.
Quality Criteria
- Follow Instructions. Ratings were applied consistent with their meanings, and comments were written as per the instructions.
- Convincing. Justifications for ratings are sufficiently detailed and logical as to be convincing.
- Caution! There is a common problem with students giving all their teammates scores of Excellent without providing convincing justifications for the scores. These students generally receive a Fail grade on their reviews.