This site is from a past semester! The current version will be here when the new semester starts.
CS2103/T 2020 Jan-Apr
Schedule
  • Full Timeline
  • Week 1 [Jan 13]
  • Week 2 [Jan 20]
  • Week 3 [Jan 27]
  • Week 4 [Feb 3]
  • Week 5 [Feb 10]
  • Week 6 [Feb 17]
  • Week 7 [Mar 2]
  • Week 8 [Mar 9]
  • Week 9 [Mar 16]
  • Week 10 [Mar 23]
  • Week 11 [Mar 30]
  • Week 12 [Apr 6]
  • Week 13 [Apr 13]
  • Textbook
  • Admin Info
    • Links
  • Report Bugs
  • Forum
  • Instructors
  • Announcements
  • File Submissions
  • Tutorial Schedule
  • Java Coding Standard
  • Participation Marks List
    •  Individual Project (iP):
  • Individual Project Info
  • Duke Upstream Repo
  • iP Code Dashboard
  • iP Showcase
    •  Team Project (tP):
  • Team Project Info
  • Team IDs
  • Addressbook-level3
  • Addressbook-level 1,2,4
  • tP Code Dashboard
  • tP Showcase
    •

    • tP: Supervision Tools


    Peer Evaluations

    This module leverages peer feedback/evaluations in many ways. In particular, we do several rounds of peer evaluations using TEAMMATES.

    Submitting peer evaluations is compulsory. If you routinely miss submitting peer evaluations, you can lose participation marks.

    Session: Practice Peer Evaluation

    • Objective: to give you a chance to familiarize with the TEAMMATES tool
    • Held early in the semester
    • Submission is compulsory. However, your responses will not considered for grading as this session is for practice only.

    Session: Midterm Peer Evaluation

    • Held just after recess week
    Important questions included in the evaluation:

    Q The team members' contribution to the User Guide is,

    Q The team members' contribution to the Developer Guide is,

    Q The team members' contribution to the team-based tasks is,

    Q The team members' contribution to the product implementation (excluding UG, DG, and team-based tasks) is,

    Q The team members' conduct in the project and during tutorials,

    • Evaluated based on the following criteria, on a scale Poor/Below Average/Average/Good/Excellent:

    Peer Evaluation Criteria: Professional Conduct

    • Professional Communication :
      • Communicates sufficiently and professionally. e.g. Does not use offensive language or excessive slang in project communications.
      • Responds to communication from team members in a timely manner (e.g. within 24 hours).
    • Punctuality: Does not cause others to waste time or slow down project progress by frequent tardiness.
    • Dependability: Promises what can be done, and delivers what was promised.
    • Effort: Puts in sufficient effort to, and tries their best to keep up with the module/project pace. Seeks help from others when necessary.
    • Quality: Does not deliver work products that seem to be below the student's competence level i.e. tries their best to make the work product as high quality as possible within her competency level.
    • Meticulousness:
      • Rarely overlooks submission requirements.
      • Rarely misses compulsory module activities such as pre-module survey.
    • Teamwork: How willing are you to act as part of a team, contribute to team-level tasks, adhere to team decisions, etc. Honors all collectively agreed-upon commitments e.g., weekly project meetings.

    Q The competency of the team member demonstrated in the project and during the tutorials,

    • Considered only for bonus marks, A+ grades, and tutor recruitment
    • Evaluated based on the following criteria, on a scale Poor/Below Average/Average/Good/Excellent:

    Peer Evaluation Criteria: Competency

    • Technical Competency: Able to gain competency in all the required tools and techniques.
    • Mentoring skills: Helps others when possible. Able to mentor others well.
    • Communication skills: Able to communicate (written and spoken) well. Takes initiative in discussions.

    Q [Optional] Any ANONYMOUS feedback you want to give the classmates you reviewed above?

    Q [Optional] Any CONFIDENTIAL comments about any team members?

    Session: Final Peer Evaluation

    • Held soon after the final project submission.
    • There will be bonus marks for i.e., those who are close to the overall consensusgood peer evaluations.
    • This session includes all questions from the Midterm Peer Evaluation:

    • In addition, it contains these additional questions:

    Q Do you agree with the contributions claimed by team members, as stated in their PPP?

    Session: Responses to Peer Evaluations

    • This is a chance for you to submit your objections to the ratings you received in the Final Peer Evaluation

    Guidelines for Giving Peer Feedback

    Giving constructive feedback to others is a valuable skill for software engineers. It is also an intended learning outcome of this module. Half-hearted/trivial feedback will not earn participation marks.

    Here are some things to keep in mind:

    • Assume you are giving feedback to a colleague, not a friend. Keep the tone of your feedback reasonably professional. Do not use offensive language or slang.
    • The feedback should be honest and consistent. Giving positive qualitative feedback (e.g. Thanks for all the hard work! and negative ratings (e.g. Equal share - 40%) to the same team member is not being honest.
    • State your expectations early. All too often students give positive/neutral feedback early (hoping that the team member will improve later) and trash the team member in the final evaluation (because the he/she did not improve as expected). However, this could be confusing to the recipient. It is better to give negative feedback early so that the team member gets a clear signal that he/she needs to improve.

    tP: Supervision Tools