Every team member should conduct a regular (eg. weekly or
after key deliverables) peer assessment of their
team-mates. The rubric below is one example of how you
might do that, but another is included in the MSD Grading
Rubric. In the rubric below, the 'Norms' reflect how each
team member expects their peers to meet the team
Accepted Norms of Performance: Peer Assessment
The team member has had one or more unexcused
absences or tardy arrivals to a scheduled activity.
The team member is not notifying others of conflicts
or has allowed other commitments to impede team
duties. The team member is detracting from the
performance of the entire team.
The team member has had one or more unexcused
absences or tardy arrivals. The individual could and
should have done a better job at notifying (in
advance) a peer of the absence or tardiness. At the
present time, the problem has not caused significant
harm to the team but this behavior needs to improve.
It is not unusual for a team member to receive this
rating a couple of times during the project.
The team member was prompt and present at every team
event this week, or any absences were excused in
advance. If there was an unexcused absence or
tardiness, the team-mates agreed that the reason
disclosed after the fact was indeed unavoidable. For
example, a member has an accident on the way to
campus and was unable to contact a team-mate about
being late. The absent member caught up with a peer
as soon as practical and informed them of the
Not only is the team member always prompt and
present, but the member clearly plans ahead for
excused absences (such as job trips) and insures that
the absence will not adversely affect team
performance. The member notifies the team of heavy
loads and external conflicts (such as exams in other
classes) that COULD have an adverse impact on the
team, and works with the peers on this team to make
sure that the information flow from the member to and
from the peers is smooth even in such cases.
The team member has not completed the task assigned,
or has submitted a response that is clearly
insufficient. The work will need to be re-done by
another team member in order for the team to move
forward. Some of the work may have been done, but it
was incomplete. The team member is detracting from
the performance of the entire team.
The team member made some progress towards the task
assigned, but not as much progress as should have
been accomplished. The work may be done, but the
other team member's have no way of checking the
results, because the supporting documentation is
incomplete. The team member is getting behind on the
tasks that need to be completed. The team member
needs to make up the missed work during the next
The team member has made solid progress towards the
task assigned. The task is complete, and is well
done, though it may need some additional work and
refinement to be fully complete. The assignment may
be incomplete, but the team member has clearly made a
good effort towards getting the task done. In
retrospect, this task may have been too much for the
member to do in the time allocated, so the fact that
the task is not done yet is not due to lack of effort
by the member.
The task has been completed fully, and is in
essentially finished form. The other team members can
readily check the work submitted since the
documentation is so clear. Not only is the work done,
but everyone on the team recognizes that the task is
complete with little or no need for additional
The work completed by the team member is unacceptable
and does not meet the basic standards of engineering
work. Engineering principles were not applied, or
were grossly mis-applied. Basic elements of the
engineering task were overlooked. The work completed
must be re-done completely.
The work completed by the member contains many errors
that must be corrected. While the basic approach to
problem solving may be ok, the actual work completed
needs to be largely re-done in order to be useful to
the team. Some things were not done by the team
member, that should have been obvious to complete.
The work completed by the member contains a few
errors that must be corrected. The basic approach to
problem solving is good, and the errors are
relatively minor and could be readily corrected
through normal peer review and checking. The work was
corrected through consultation with the team members
or faculty guide.
The team member completed the task with virtually no
errors or omissions. The work was accurate, and can
be easily scaled to other applications or tasks that
the team may encounter.
Professional and Ethical
The team member has committed plagiarism, falsified
data, ignored their responsibility as an engineer.
The team member may have behaved inappropriately at a
team event, or in a manner that reflects adversely on
the team. The members' actions may cause the entire
team to fail.
The team member has overlooked some references or
consistently fails to cite sources and conduct
individual tasks. The team member may have made some
off-color remarks or been offensive to a team-mate or
other individual. The team member needs to clean up
The team member behaves responsibly and fully
documents sources and collaborators on all work.
The team member is a role model for others, and
behaves in a professional and ethical fashion even
under very trying and difficult circumstances.
The team member is a burden to the rest of the team.
The team member is carrying less than their fair
share of the work load.
The team member is carrying their fair share of the
The team member is carrying more than their fair
share of the workload.