Q01
Message
All templates
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.
Sample questions
A preview of what’s in the template. Every question is editable before you launch.
10 questions · ~6 min
Q02
Short TextRequired
Which teammate are you evaluating in this response? Enter their full name.
Q03
MatrixRequired
Thinking about this teammate's work on the project, how much do you agree with each statement?
5 rows × 5 columns
- 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
Columns: Strongly Disagree · Disagree · Neutral · Agree · Strongly Agree
Q04
Opinion ScaleRequired
Overall, how would you rate this teammate's contribution to the final project outcome?
Scale: 0 – 10
Min:Did not contributeMax:Outstanding contribution
Q05
Point AllocationRequired
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)
Allocate 100 points
Q06
Multiple Choice
Would you choose to work with this teammate again on a future group project?
- Yes, definitely
- Probably
- Probably not
- No
Q07
AI Interview
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
Long Text
Name one specific thing this teammate did well, and one thing they could improve on for future group work.
Q09
Multiple Choice
What was your primary role on this team?
- Team leader / coordinator
- Core contributor
- Peripheral or occasional contributor
- Not sure
- Prefer not to say
Q10
Message
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.
What’s included
AI follow-ups
Adaptive probes on open-ended answers that pull out detail a static form would miss.
Attention checks
Built-in safeguards against rushed answers and low-quality respondents.
AI-drafted copy
Wording, ordering, and branching written by the AI — tuned to your research goal.
Auto report
Themes, quotes, and a plain-English summary write themselves once responses come in.
How it compares
We reviewed the closest templates from other survey tools. Here’s what they do well — and where this template goes further.
Why this template
- 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.
What it does well
- 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
Where it falls short
- 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.
What it does well
- Engaging, mobile-friendly conversational form format known to boost completion
- Fielding-ready template requiring minimal setup
- Clean visual design consistent with Typeform's brand
Where it falls short
- 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
Ready to launch?
Open this template in the editor. Every part is yours to change before the first respondent sees it.