Wiki contents


2019 Learning journals
2018 Learning journals
2015 Learning journals
2014 Learning journals
2013 Learning journals

Smartsims Support Centre

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.



This list is not comprehensive so you might include other factors in your evaluation.

As well as evaluating your peer's contribution by awarding points you need to justify your evaluation. You should write one or two paragraphs of feedback to each of your peers. Typically, the justification will explain (a) why you gave the number of points, and (b) which one or two behaviours they might change to improve how you evaluated them. The justification must be meaningful and consistent with the points you allocate. It is inappropriate and misleading to award someone 5/100 and simply say "You are a hard worker who is always prepared".

The peer evaluation you give to your peers should not be a surprise. Individually, and as a team, you are responsible for providing ongoing feedback to your teammates. If someone is going off the tracks (i.e., you see their performance as unacceptable or likely to significantly damage their rating), you need to make sure that they understand that, and document (via email) your attempts to help them get back on track. On a final note: The peer evaluations will remain confidential (i.e., only Andrew will see them).


Such ranking systems are frequently used in industry for deciding matters such as bonuses, promotions, and in some contexts, firing (See for example, Grote, 2005).