Example Forms




Introduction

Within WebPA forms are used to hold the assessment elements. Here you will find examples of forms used by a wide range of academics across a number of disciplines.


Group Working

Criteria: Rate each person’s ability at searching for information?
Score Range: 1-5
1. Made no effort beyond a simple internet keyword search
3. Made an average contribution in this respect
5. Searched a wide variety of sources tenaciously and with success

Criteria: Rate each person’s ability to generate ideas and concepts?
Score Range: 1-5
1. Contributed no useful original ideas
3. Made an average contribution in this respect
5. Generated a wealth of realistic ideas and design concepts throughout

Criteria: Ability to apply sound design methodology to concept evaluation
Score Range: 1-5
1. Played little or no real part in this element/relied on gut feeling
3. Made an average contribution in this respect
5. Methodical logical, unbiased and thorough when deciding the merits of ideas

Criteria: Rate each person’s contribution to developing the chosen concept?
Score Range: 1-5
1. Lacked the tenacity to properly engineer the solution
3. Made an average contribution in this respect
5. Applied appropriate science and executed sound experiments/models/calculations

Criteria: Attendance?
Score Range: 1-5
1. Unreliable, often absent or late without explanation
3. Made an average contribution in this respect
5. Reliable, always present when required by the team, mentor or supervisor unless prevented by illness.

Criteria: Rate each person’s contribution to the Written Report?
Score Range: 1-5
1. Made only a small contribution to a poor standard
3. Made an average contribution in this respect
5. Completed some of the most challenging sections to a high standard



Personal Effectiveness

Criteria: CO-OPERATION
Criteria Description: This covers attendance at meetings, contribution to meetings, carrying out of designated tasks, dealing with problems.
Scoring range: 0-5
Score 0 : no help at all
Score 1 : quite poor
Score 2 : not as good as most of the group
Score 3 : about average for this group
Score 4 : better than most of the group
Score 5 : really excellent

Criteria:COMMUNICATION
Criteria Description: This covers effectiveness in meetings, clarity of work submitted to the group, negotiation with the group, communication between meetings and providing feedback.
Scoring range: 0-5
Score 0 : no help at all
Score 1 : quite poor
Score 2 : not as good as most of the group
Score 3 : about average for this group
Score 4 : better than most of the group
Score 5 : really excellent

Criteria:ENTHUSIASM
Criteria Description: This covers motivation, creativity and initiative during the project.
Scoring range: 0-5
Score 0 : no help at all in this respect
Score 1 : quite poor in this respect
Score 2 : not as good as most of the group
Score 3 : about average for this group
Score 4 : better than most of the group
Score 5 : really excellent

Criteria:ORGANISATION
Criteria Description: This covers skills in self-organisation and the ability to organise others. It also covers planning, setting targets, establishing ground rules and keeping to deadlines.
Scoring range: 0-5
Score 0 : no help at all
Score 1 : quite poor
Score 2 : not as good as most of the group
Score 3 : about average for this group
Score 4 : better than most of the group
Score 5 : really excellent in this respect

Criteria:CONTRIBUTION
Criteria Description: This covers the overall effort put in by an individual during the Semester.
Scoring range: 0-5
Score 0 : no help at all
Score 1 : quite poor
Score 2 : not as good as most of the group
Score 3 : about average for this group
Score 4 : better than most of the group
Score 5 : really excellent in this respect


Reflection on Key Skills

Criteria: Time management
Criteria description: To what extent were you and your group members prompt at arriving for meetings or group sessions, emailing information, or phoning etc?
Score Range: 1-5
1. Very often late
2. Sometimes late
3. Sometimes on time, sometimes late
4. On time more often than not
5. Always on time for all tasks

Criteria: Problem solving
Criteria description: To what extent were you and your group members active in providing constructive ideas, suggestions, solutions etc
Score Range: 1-5
1. Rarely provided ideas
2.Sometimes provided useful ideas
3. Sometimes provided ideas, some were useful
4. Quite often provided useful ideas
5. Always provided useful ideas

Criteria: Communication
Criteria description: To what extent did you and your group members keep in touch with each other during the project?
Score Range: 1-5
1. Rarely kept in touch
2. Sometimes kept in touch
3. Sometimes in touch, sometimes not
4. Usually kept in touch
5. Always kept in touch

Criteria: Reflection
Criteria description: To what extent were you and your group members thoughtful about what you were doing (e.g. constructive criticism, open to ideas, seeking out advice)?
Score Range: 1-5
1. Rarely acted positively/reflectively
2. Sometimes acted positively
3. Sometimes positive, sometimes not
4. Usually acted positively/reflectively
5. Always positive in this way