Feedback Review        Scott Coykendall Robyn Parker Dan Jones Joe Flaherty ...

Performance Review   ... Scott Coykendall Robyn Parker Dan Jones Joe Flaherty

...for Robyn Parker

Robyn was very organized, timely, and usually was the one to keep the group on track (which was much appreciated). With a larger group, its easy for side conversations to start, and she was great at redirecting the group’s focus back to the task at hand. She was one of the weaker writers of the group, but she was great at generating ideas on how to approach the assignment (i.e. she was great at brainstorming questions that the audiences may have had in the A&U Profiles).

...for Scott Coykendall

Among all the group members, Scott was most difficult to work with. He rarely showed up to class or group meetings and never bothered to respond to our emails. Because he didn’t come to many meetings, his role on this project was unclear. He is a bright guy with a lot of ideas, but needs to remember that listening to others is a good quality to have when working in a group. He tended to talk over everyone else and usually believed his way was the only way (it always took a bit to explain to him our perspective on a certain aspect of the assignment).

...for Joe Flaherty

Joe has strong leadership skills. Throughout the Skype and Twitter Protocol she laid out the foundation of the project. She assigned the group task to complete and deadlines. By doing this we were able to make the strongest paper possible because we had enough time to edit out work. She is also very open to ideas. When someone would edit her work she was completely fine with changes, in order to make the project a truly collaborated project. Joe is also organized, and her strong organization skills made the projects run smoothly. While at the same time reducing stress. Her technical writer skills are very impressive. Her design for the White Paper was well thought and planned ahead of time. The White Paper design displays her hard work, and dedication to the group. Finally, X was enthusiastic about both the projects, making the process enjoyable. X could be more direct with other people, who did meet deadlines for a project on time. This wasn’t entirely necessary because thus only happened once.

Overall response to Dan Jones's feedback:

Although late, you gave good quality feedback. Open, fair, and somewhat detailed with actual contributions that each person made! Be more consistent with the consequence-indicators so that your feedback (praise and developmental) is more readily understood.