Figure 1

Illustration of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales for Group Member Contribution

Quality of Input

(Group member made a valuable contribution to group process and outcomes)

5- Group member has read all agreed-upon material; then uses the information learned to give ideas that directly relate to the issues at hand. Group member raises valuable questions and gives feedback to other group members.

4- Group members provide valuable and understandable information to the group. Member comes to meetings prepared and is active in discussions. Group member can support his or her comments.

3- Group member can be expected to offer some ideas and give some feedback on material. Member could be expected to participate in group discussions, although is not always prepared. May have read outside material, but does not always understand it.

2- Group member rarely offers and relies on others for feedback. Member could be expected to research materials but offer input only on request, not voluntary. Ideas offered by member are not always related to the discussion at hand. Member is often unprepared.

1- Group member would do little work and offer no valuable ideas or feedback. Group member had not looked at material prior to group meetings. Unable to apply class material to the project.

2-

Participation and Attendance

(Group member was reliable and accommodative of others for meetings)

5- Could be expected to show up on time for all scheduled meetings and stay for the entire meeting. Attendance would benefit group performance. Willing to work around the schedule of others.

4- Group member would be present at all group meetings possible. If a meeting is missed, the member has a valid reason and would meet with another member to discuss what took place at the meeting.

3- Member attends all meetings possible and has a valid reason for missing a meeting. He or she does not meet with a member to find out what was missed. Regularly attends meetings but is often late.

2- Could be expected to forget scheduled meetings, and arrives late for those that were remembered. Could be expected to view attendance as an imposition. Group member does little make-up work for missed meetings.

1- Member fails to attend most group meetings; offers no excuse and makes no attempt to find out what was missed. Rarely on time for any meetings attended. Doesn’t finish projects.

Teamwork

(Group member worked well with other members of the group toward achieving the group goal)

5- Able to work with others rationally listens to others= opinions and criticisms, and adapts to changes. Presents his or her own ideas in a clear manner. Facilitates group interaction.

4- Student is easy to work with. Group member put effort into group projects. Communicates ideas in an understandable manner. Works with group to develop others= ideas.

3- Able to work with others rationally and listens to others, but does not take criticism well. Could be expected to attempt communication, but it is often unclear. This person responds to output of others.

2- This student works with one group member but not with others. He or she does just enough to get by. Listens to the ideas of others, but interrupts with unrelated questions. Doesn=t present their ideas clearly.

1- Member fails to attend most group meetings; offers no excuse and makes no attempt to find out what was missed. Rarely on time for any meetings attended. Doesn=t finish projects

Figure 2

Diagnosis

(Did the team identify relevant issues and problems and explain the causal relationship that led to these events?)

5- Key strategic issues are identified and linked with relevant internal and external factors; analysis is supported by strong evidence and logical arguments.

4- All aspects of key strategic issues are identified and the causes and consequences are either logically explained or supported by evidence.

3- The major strategic issues are identified, but no supporting evidence or logical arguments were presented to convince the audience that the analyses are correct.

2- The problem diagnosis covers the correct topic areas, but is vague and without supporting facts. The group gives a bundle of information and does not distinguish important from unimportant events.

1- Few or no aspects of the strategic issues or problems are correctly identified; non-issues or symptoms are incorrectly assumed to be the problem.

Organization of the Presentation

( Logical order and flow)

5- Presentation followed a logical order. All conclusions and recommendations were derived logically from evidence given. Each presenter=s portion was clearly linked to the previous section. Issues within each section were logically organized.

4- Presentation followed a generally logical order, but the audience was not able to anticipate what would come next. Most of the conclusions were derived from the evidence given. Topics were all covered, but seemed out of sequence.

3- Presentation was hard to follow in parts. Topics were internally logically organized, but the flow of the overall presentation lacked logical sequence. All important topics were covered at some point in the presentation.

2- Presentation was illogical. Most conclusions did not follow logically from the evidence given. Some claims were not supported. Some subjects were omitted. The presentation was very difficult to follow. Transitions from one speaker to another were haphazard.

1- The presentation did not follow any logical order. There were several internal inconsistencies among sections of the presentation, and evidence was not always provided to support claims. No clear transition was made between one presenter and another.

Lengnick-Hall, M. & Lengnick-Hall, C. (1989.) Hitting the bullseye with bars: A new solution to the same traditional problems in education. University of Minnesota - Duluth Achievement Center. Instructional Development. VII (I). pp. 3&7.