Education & Academic

Group Project Peer Evaluation Survey

Captures how students rate a teammate's contribution, communication, reliability, and work quality on a shared project, plus how they'd split credit across the team. An AI follow-up interview digs into the specific behavior behind the rating instead of settling for a vague number, giving instructors evidence to catch free-riders and recognize strong collaborators.

このテンプレートを使うほかのテンプレートを見る

設問の例

テンプレートの内容をプレビューできます。すべての設問は公開前に自由に編集できます。

全10問・約6分

Q01

メッセージ

Thanks for taking a few minutes to reflect on your group project experience. This helps your instructor understand how the team actually worked together, not just the final result. Your individual answers are kept confidential from teammates. About 5 minutes.

Q02

自由回答（短文）必須

Which teammate are you evaluating in this response? Enter their full name.

Q03

マトリクス必須

Thinking about this teammate's work on the project, how much do you agree with each statement?

5行 × 5列

Contributed a fair share of the overall workload
Communicated clearly and responded to messages promptly
Produced work that met the quality the project needed
Met deadlines and followed through on commitments
Handled disagreements or setbacks constructively

列: Strongly Disagree · Disagree · Neutral · Agree · Strongly Agree

Q04

オピニオンスケール必須

Overall, how would you rate this teammate's contribution to the final project outcome?

スケール: 0 – 10

最小:Did not contribute最大:Outstanding contribution

Q05

ポイント配分必須

Allocate 100 points across everyone on your team, including yourself, based on how much each person actually contributed to the final result. (Template note: replace the placeholder names below with your actual team roster before launching.)

Yourself
(Replace with teammate 1 name)
(Replace with teammate 2 name)
(Replace with teammate 3 name)
(Replace with teammate 4 name, delete if not needed)

100ポイントを配分

Q06

選択式

Would you choose to work with this teammate again on a future group project?

Yes, definitely
Probably
Probably not
No

Q07

AIインタビュー

Ask the respondent to walk through one specific moment or task that best illustrates their overall rating of this teammate's contribution. If their point allocation gave this teammate notably fewer or more points than an equal split, probe directly on why. If the rating was high on all statements but the 'work again' answer was lukewarm (or vice versa), surface and resolve that tension with a concrete example.

Q08

自由回答（長文）

Name one specific thing this teammate did well, and one thing they could improve on for future group work.

Q09

選択式

What was your primary role on this team?

Team leader / coordinator
Core contributor
Peripheral or occasional contributor
Not sure
Prefer not to say

Q10

メッセージ

All done — thank you for your honest feedback. Your instructor will review these responses alongside the final project deliverable, and your individual answers won't be shared directly with teammates.

含まれる機能

AIによる深掘り
自由回答に合わせてAIが追加で質問し、固定のフォームでは拾えない具体的な内容を引き出します。
注意確認設問
急いだ回答や質の低い回答者を除外する仕組みを標準で備えています。
AIが作成する設問文
文言、設問の順序、条件分岐をAIが調査の目的に合わせて作成します。
自動レポート
回答が集まると、テーマ、引用、わかりやすい要約が自動で作成されます。

他ツールとの比較

ほかのアンケートツールで最も近いテンプレートを調べました。それぞれの優れている点と、このテンプレートがさらに踏み込んでいる点をまとめています。

このテンプレートを選ぶ理由

Goes beyond a single overall rating by pairing structured questions (agreement matrix, contribution scale, credit-allocation split) with an AI follow-up interview that asks the respondent to walk through one specific moment illustrating the teammate's behavior — turning vague scores into concrete evidence.
Includes a constant-sum credit allocation across the whole team, not just the one teammate being rated, so instructors can compare how multiple team members perceive the same distribution of effort.
Captures the respondent's own role on the team and asks for one specific strength and one specific improvement area in their own words, giving context for interpreting their ratings.
Produces an auto-generated report built from transparent, visible prompts, so instructors can see exactly what was asked and why a follow-up probe was triggered, rather than reviewing raw open-text alone.

Jotform

Student Peer Evaluation Form Template

A ready-to-field static form for rating a teammate on standard peer-evaluation criteria, built on Jotform's drag-and-drop builder. It's a solid starting point for basic collection but relies entirely on fixed rating fields with no mechanism to probe further when a rating looks off. Best suited for instructors who just need a simple, quick-to-deploy scorecard.

優れている点

Fielding-ready template usable immediately without survey design work
Familiar drag-and-drop customization within Jotform's broader form ecosystem
Likely integrates with Jotform's existing reporting and data export tools

物足りない点

Static rating fields only — no adaptive follow-up when a response is vague or suggests a free-rider situation
No voice-based interview option for richer qualitative context
No published per-response quality scoring or transparent prompt methodology

Typeform

Student Peer Evaluation Form

A conversational, one-question-at-a-time peer evaluation template that benefits from Typeform's polished respondent experience and higher completion rates. It covers the standard peer-review criteria but, like other form builders, cannot dynamically dig into a specific answer beyond what's pre-scripted. Good for a clean, low-friction survey rather than an investigative one.

優れている点

Engaging, mobile-friendly conversational form format known to boost completion
Fielding-ready template requiring minimal setup
Clean visual design consistent with Typeform's brand

物足りない点

No adaptive AI follow-up — question flow is fixed regardless of how a respondent answers
No voice AI interview mode for capturing spoken detail on teammate behavior
No automated quality scoring or auto-generated evidence report for instructors

よくあるご質問