I’m in the process of collating your peer review for the Special Project. The overall impression reading the comments on group dynamics is that most students had a positive experience with the group–in some cases, even a very positive experience. I won’t have time to post extensive analysis of the qualitative comments but the attached wordcloud for Question 4 (“Any further general comments about your project group”) created using https://www.wordclouds.com/ gives you a sense of the overall situation. (Click on the graphics to see a larger version.)

Below are my preliminary analysis of the quantitative returns, dated as of evening of 11 November.


  • Question 1: Rate how well your group worked together

The distribution of students’ ratings are:





Some 87% of you returned better than indifference . In addition, most (nearly 90%) of the groups returned more than 4.0 for the average ratings. A whole 15 groups–each with between 4 to 6 members–scored a perfect 5 upon 5!


  • Question 2: Rate each group member’s contribution to the project. (Include your self-evaluation.)

A total of 2,256 ratings were provided by 435 students. Not counting the self-evaluations, we have 1,808 ratings. They break down as follows:





Some 84% of all ratings given are in the good to very good zone, and 11% in neutral, and less than 2.5% in the bad to “no idea what the person did” zone. Overall, this is very good, even slightly better than previous years.

All of the bad to “no idea what the person did” are located within 18 groups (compared to 28 groups last year), out of a total of 91 groups. Two of these groups have a total of 6 negative ratings, the rest have between 1-3 such ratings (a typical group will have 20-30 ratings in total). The tutors will follow up in all cases where necessary–we are committed to fairness.

There’s a lot of stuff in the qualitative comments–mainly positive. I doubt that I will be able to post extensive analysis, but rest assure I expect to read all of it.