PEER ASSESSMENT FORM

STRATEGY GROUP ASSIGNMENTS

The Strathclyde MBA places great importance on collaborative group learning to support individual learning and
development. Please ensure you are familiar with the statement on groups/group work in the MBA Course Handbook.
In order that individual contributions to group learning are assessed fairly, each group member is asked to evaluate the
overall contribution from each of their group members to the learning and work of the group, by completing this peer
assessment form on completing the group assignment. You will not evaluate your own contribution. This assessment is
mandatory. It will be treated as confidential and should be handed in separately from the group assignment.
The names of all group members must be listed in the table below, along with a rating for each member (excluding
yourself) ranging from a low of 0.7 to a high of 1.3 representing your assessment of the member’s overall contribution to
the team. The composite average rating for each team member will then be applied to the group assignment mark in
order to arrive at the final group assignment mark for each team member. The ratings apply as follows:
The group member’s contribution was: Rating
Outstanding in all respects 1.3
Very good, considerably above group average contribution 1.2
Good, above the average contribution of the group 1.1
Average contribution compared with others in the group 1.0
A little below the average contribution of the group 0.9
Poor, well below the group average contribution 0.8
Very poor, overall contribution to the group was negligible 0.7
Clearly not all members of a group contribute equally in the same way; some members for example, may be very good at
‘brainstorming’, while others may be better at undertaking research, or report writing. In assessing the contribution of
each of your team members to the group assignment and learning, consider these contribution factors:
1. Overall contribution to group discussions 6. Working with the group in a constructive manner
2. Carrying out research and analysis 7. Preparation of presentation/report material
3. Facilitation of discussions 8. Managing project tasks
4. Keeping the team on track and motivated 9. Regular communication with team members
5. In-depth yet fair evaluation of ideas and arguments
In the table below, for each group member: (1) please give a rating of between 0.7 and 1.3; (2) when rating a team
member with a score other than 1.0 you MUST indicate the reason for doing so by ticking the appropriate box relating to
the 9 contribution criteria above. For example, if you score someone as 1.1 and believe it deserving because s/he
undertook exceptional research/analysis, tick column 2; or if you rated someone as 0.8 because s/he did not work with
the group in a constructive manner, tick box 6.

YOUR NAME: ………………………………………………………. SUBJECT: …………………..

Group Number: …………………. Date: ……………………….

Contribution Factors
Rating
Group Members’ Names (0.7-1.3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1
2
3
4
5
6
Total:

(Please use the reverse side of this form to add additional comments on team members if necessary)

Please note that any indications of racist, malicious, deceitful, or vengeful peer assessments will not be
tolerated and will be dealt with severely by the University, and may lead to the same treatment as that for
improper academic conduct.

Note: The TOTAL of the ratings must equal the number of your peers in this group (i.e. 4, 5, 6) excluding yourself. Thus
high ratings (above 1.00) for some group members must be compensated for by lower ratings (below 1.00) for others
group members. For example if there are 5 group members (not including yourself), the ratings could be as follows: 1.3,
1.1, 1.0, 0.9, 0.7 - giving a total of 5.00.
SMSS Peer Assessment: 8-2010