Skip to content

worked-round.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
119 lines (98 loc) · 3.57 KB

worked-round.md

File metadata and controls

119 lines (98 loc) · 3.57 KB
Raw

Worked example: one peer-evaluation round

Team of 3 on a deliverable set worth 32 points; the team earned 27. One student (Dev Rao) never submitted a ballot. Input is deliberately messy: mixed separators, a bare NAU id without the domain.

What students typed

Alvarez, Bea typed into the allocation question:

abc12@nau.edu = 110
cpo59@nau.edu = 100
dmr7@nau.edu = 90

parsed: {'abc12@nau.edu': 110, 'cpo59@nau.edu': 100, 'dmr7@nau.edu': 90} — total 300/300, valid: True

Okonkwo, Chi typed into the allocation question:

abc12@nau.edu: 108
cpo59 = 104
dmr7@nau.edu - 88

parsed: {'abc12@nau.edu': 108, 'cpo59@nau.edu': 104, 'dmr7@nau.edu': 88} — total 300/300, valid: True

What the script computes

Student Ratings received Mean Factor Adjustment posted
Alvarez, Bea 2 109.0 1.09 +2.43
Okonkwo, Chi 2 102.0 1.02 +0.54
Rao, Dev 2 89.0 0.89 -2.97

Team grade stays 27 / 32 for everyone — the adjustment is a separate 0-point line item, so the group's denominator never changes.

Flags raised for the instructor:

  • Rao, Dev: did_not_submit_evaluation

The comment each student receives

Posted automatically onto the adjustment assignment, names stripped:

Alvarez, Bea

============================================================
PEER REVIEW REPORT
Tangible Board Game -- Draft
Student: Alvarez, Bea
------------------------------------------------------------
Ratings received: 2 (including your own self-rating)
Mean rating      : 109.0
Factor           : 1.09
------------------------------------------------------------
Team earned 27 of 32 on the covered deliverables.
27 x 1.09 = 29.43
ADJUSTMENT POSTED: +2.43
------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT YOUR TEAMMATES SAID YOU DID WELL:
  - built the whole card deck
------------------------------------------------------------
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT:
  (none)
============================================================

Okonkwo, Chi

============================================================
PEER REVIEW REPORT
Tangible Board Game -- Draft
Student: Okonkwo, Chi
------------------------------------------------------------
Ratings received: 2 (including your own self-rating)
Mean rating      : 102.0
Factor           : 1.02
------------------------------------------------------------
Team earned 27 of 32 on the covered deliverables.
27 x 1.02 = 27.54
ADJUSTMENT POSTED: +0.54
------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT YOUR TEAMMATES SAID YOU DID WELL:
  - kept the rules doc current
------------------------------------------------------------
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT:
  (none)
============================================================

Rao, Dev

============================================================
PEER REVIEW REPORT
Tangible Board Game -- Draft
Student: Rao, Dev
------------------------------------------------------------
Ratings received: 2 (you did not submit an evaluation, so your own rating is not among them)
Mean rating      : 89.0
Factor           : 0.89
------------------------------------------------------------
Team earned 27 of 32 on the covered deliverables.
27 x 0.89 = 24.03
ADJUSTMENT POSTED: -2.97
------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT YOUR TEAMMATES SAID YOU DID WELL:
  - good ideas in week 1
------------------------------------------------------------
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT:
  - missed the second build session
  - went quiet after the prototype
============================================================