To be quite honest, I expected more from our second review session. While there were many shining gems among the teams, overall it was more than clear that your teams are still operating off of entirely independent contributions, without any collective reflection, editing, or critical feedback on the final product. The bar will be raised yet again for the next in-class presentation, and I hope you take the time to pay attention to the details of the requirements and develop an effective way to manage roles & responsibilities, collaborate while dividing & conquering, and regroup with a critical eye on your final product before it is submitted/presented to your peers and myself.
Also, I appreciate the in-class feedback you gave to each of the teams. Your thoughts and analysis were very insightful, and your peers helped you to achieve a better score (on the whole, peer evaluations were higher than my own). I will be sharing those comments with you soon, but I have to take the time to type them up in order to preserve anonymity.
However, I did not count the evaluations that were entirely filled with Superior marks. This indicates a lack of engagement, critical analysis, and desire to help others improve, and I did not feel it was appropriate to promote these characteristics. For those of you who fell into this category, I ask you to consider whether any of us is superior in every aspect of what we do. Do none of us have anything to learn or improve upon? I encourage you to help each of us make improvements, and your voice, opinion, and perspective matters immensely.
Here is the rubric I used to grade the exam reviews.
10% - Class Evaluation Score
30% - Vanessa's Evaluation Score
10% - Group Cohesiveness with regards to Overall Expectations
50% - Participation in the Assignment