Q01
메시지
모든 템플릿
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.
샘플 질문
템플릿에 포함된 내용을 미리 확인해 보세요. 모든 질문은 설문 공개 전에 자유롭게 수정할 수 있습니다.
질문 10개 · 약 6분
Q02
단문형필수
Which teammate are you evaluating in this response? Enter their full name.
Q03
매트릭스필수
Thinking about this teammate's work on the project, how much do you agree with each statement?
5개 행 × 5개 열
- 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
열: Strongly Disagree · Disagree · Neutral · Agree · Strongly Agree
Q04
의견 척도필수
Overall, how would you rate this teammate's contribution to the final project outcome?
척도: 0 – 10
최소:Did not contribute최대:Outstanding contribution
Q05
점수 배분필수
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)
100점 배분
Q06
객관식
Would you choose to work with this teammate again on a future group project?
- Yes, definitely
- Probably
- Probably not
- No
Q07
AI 인터뷰
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
장문형
Name one specific thing this teammate did well, and one thing they could improve on for future group work.
Q09
객관식
What was your primary role on this team?
- Team leader / coordinator
- Core contributor
- Peripheral or occasional contributor
- Not sure
- Prefer not to say
Q10
메시지
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.
포함된 기능
AI 후속 질문
정형화된 설문이 놓치는 세부 내용을, 주관식 답변에 맞춰 AI가 심층 질문으로 끌어냅니다.
주의력 확인 장치
성의 없는 답변과 저품질 응답자를 걸러내는 내장 안전장치입니다.
AI가 작성한 문안
문구, 질문 순서, 분기 로직까지 AI가 연구 목표에 맞춰 작성합니다.
자동 리포트
응답이 모이면 주요 주제, 인용문, 이해하기 쉬운 요약이 자동으로 작성됩니다.
다른 서비스와 비교
다른 설문 도구의 가장 유사한 템플릿을 검토했습니다. 그 도구들이 잘하는 점과, 이 템플릿이 한발 더 나아가는 지점을 정리했습니다.
이 템플릿을 선택하는 이유
- 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 TemplateA 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.
잘하는 점
- 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
아쉬운 점
- 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 FormA 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.
잘하는 점
- Engaging, mobile-friendly conversational form format known to boost completion
- Fielding-ready template requiring minimal setup
- Clean visual design consistent with Typeform's brand
아쉬운 점
- 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
설문을 공개할 준비가 되셨나요?
이 템플릿을 편집기에서 열어 보세요. 첫 응답자가 보기 전에 모든 부분을 원하는 대로 바꿀 수 있습니다.