Group Self-Evaluation

This self- and peer-mark assessment (10%) is also a 2-parter, with the self-assessment at due Thursday, 11 December 2025 @ 10:00 and the peer-mark component due Tuesday, 16 December 2025 @ 10:00. This assessment asks you to reflect on the process of ‘doing data science’ as part of a team, since this format is typical of real-world projects. Many companies (e.g. Apple, Google, etc.) employ an Agile project format in which teams undertake a ‘Retrospective’ at the end of a project in order to identify ways to improve how they work in the future. We are not asking you to do this as a group, but we hope that this will help you to develop as a budding analyst or data scientist.

Format

You will be asked to score both yourself and the rest of the group on their contribution to the project. Keep in mind that someone who wrote the code may be more ‘visible’ than the person who ensured that the code was actually answering the question, and the fact that you’re much more likely to be aware of your own contributions than you are of the contributions of others.

The guidance is:

Thinking about the many ways — visible and less visible — that a student can contribute to the success of a group project, please rank the contributions made by your team-mates towards the group project as well as provide any comments you feel are pertinent. Write your comments in a professional and constructive way, as this will be seen by your peers afterwards, though commentators will remain anonymous. You also need to assess yourself!

The questions are:

1. Give ratings for general contribution to the group project, including delivery of quality work, insightful ideas, solving problems, etc.
2. Give ratings for how well the team ‘ways of working’ (i.e. ‘agreed contract’) was complied with during the project.
3. Give ratings for effort put in during the project, e.g. in terms of time and engagement.
4. Give ratings for ability to work in a team, including being respectful with ideas and opinions of others, respecting space and work of others, etc.
5. Give ratings for leadership on her/his own agreed tasls and in the overall project.
6. Give individual comments to other group members.

The scores are:

Marking Band	Descriptor
Poor	The performance of the student in this area was deficient and not of a professional level. They did not engage with the group or support the submission.
Unsatisfactory	There was some evidence of an attempt to work to a professional level in this area, but this was not sustained or consistent. The student needed encouragement and extensive monitoring to support the submission.
Satisfactory	There was evidence of working to a professional level in this area, but the team member did not excel or distinguish themselves here. The student delivered what was expected of them, but nothing more.
Good	The team member performed to a professional level in this area. There may be areas for improvement, but performance was above average and the group benefited as a result.
Excellent	The team member went above and beyond in demonstrating her/his commitment, working to a high professional standard throughout in this area. This may have been a key element to the success of the project.

Justify this score with reference to the guidance provided in class (and linked to here, here, and here).