Peer Evaluation

Our group was fortunate enough to begin this assignment early so that ideas were able to come to fruition through time rather than rushing the assignment and forgetting valuable information or evidence we had collected. The group met pretty regularly every Sunday when the project was initially assigned. However, there were frequent meetings that did not progress our assignment along. It wasn’t as though we were even trying, but simply getting together to discuss hockey and/or watch videos on someone’s laptop. For someone who has to travel a decent amount to arrive at school, it was occasionally a pain when work could be divided out over email in 5 seconds as opposed to “hanging out” for 90 minutes and then delegating work. The guys in the group were great though. There was little to no conflict and work was assigned evenly. Group members that received organizational feasibility were also assigned the tasks of gathering resumes, coordinating the appearance of them, and then final edit of the entire assignment. Work was divided fairly and evenly, and the people that were finished early were always willing to meet up and help someone complete their part. I learned from this report that you have to have a real passion for the venture that you are starting. Unfortunately, one of our group members kind of unloaded the eldercare idea on our group without much of a debate. Two of our group members were opposed, and one did not attend that meeting. It was unfortunate to have only one truly passionate student doing this project but that did not hinder our ability to complete the work and to do our research/analysis to the best of our ability. For the amount of time in which we discussed sports and entertainment, it’s too bad we didn’t pick a topic that was easily accessible. As far as group member performances: Douglas Perkins ' 5/7 Ricky Romero ' 5/7 Tyler ' 6/7 (Tyler and I seemed to really take charge of the group near the end and kept conversations relevant...