Project Peer Evaluation
Confidential contribution record
Project
Peer evaluation
Peer-feedback form and scoring dimensions for the ECON 341 team project.
Purpose
Peer evaluation is 5% of the project score. It documents contribution and teamwork; it is not a popularity vote. Submit one confidential form in Brightspace after the final presentation.
Rating scale
Use the same evidence-based scale for each teammate, including yourself:
| Rating | Anchor |
|---|---|
| 5 | Consistently exceeded the agreed contribution and improved the team’s work |
| 4 | Reliably completed a strong, full share |
| 3 | Completed an adequate share with occasional prompting or revision |
| 2 | Contribution was incomplete, late, or regularly shifted to others |
| 1 | Contributed very little or seriously impeded completion |
Contribution matrix
| Team member | Preparation and reliability | Economic analysis | Evidence and accuracy | Collaboration and revision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self | ||||
| Teammate 1 | ||||
| Teammate 2 |
Evidence prompts
For each teammate, including yourself, give one concrete example.
Self
Most important contribution:
One commitment I could have handled better:
Teammate 1
Specific contribution or missed commitment:
Teammate 2
Specific contribution or missed commitment:
Team process
- Which decision or revision most improved the final project?
- How did the team divide modeling, evidence, writing, and presentation work?
- Was any contribution invisible in the final presentation but essential to completion?
- Is there a severe contribution imbalance the instructor should review? Explain with dates, tasks, or records.
Warning
Ratings without specific evidence may receive less weight. The instructor may ask for clarification and will not mechanically convert one unusually high or low rating into a penalty.