Table of contents

Overview
This is not your usual project
Group Formation
Logistics
Project Components

Overview

The goal of your group-based, semester-long course project is to build a unified, global community.

The project structure is inspired by Prof. Caraballo Muller’s Impossible Project framework, where the goal is to work on projects whose “stated goals” are, well, impossible. Why address an impossible problem? We’ll discuss this at length in the course, but the overarching idea is to tackle a long-standing problem in our current world and then to think of, as Prof. Caraballo Muller likes to say, “your new point of departure.”

Two years ago, students took on the task of ending structural racism. You can see some of their work here, although we’ll note that the project structure will be different this year (due, in part, to input from you all!). You’ll meet some of the winners, too!

At a high level, your project will address the following questions (and more):

What does it mean to have a unified, global community, and why is it important?
What aspect, or subproblem, of community fragmentation or decay does your project focus on, and why? Put another way - building a unified global community in the age of (generative) AI is a massive challenge, comprised of many, many smaller ones. What smaller problem are you going to bite off to solve, and why did you pick this one? And how will solving this smaller problem lead to a world with a unified, global community despite (or enabled by) (generative) AI?
What role will (Generative) AI play, both in helping you to build community and in potentially fragmenting or undermining it in ways that will have to be accounted for?
Which organizations (companies, non-profits, etc.) or people (e.g. academic researchers, independent thinkers) already exist that most closely address the aspect of community building that your group has chosen to tackle? How does the work you are doing support their existing efforts? What do you think they might, or actually, say about your work?
What in the existing academic literature suggests to you that your solution will work?
What are goals for your project in the short, medium, and long term?

You’ll address these problems throughout the semester, as you submit intermittent progress on your project. In the next few sections, we’ll detail these submissions as well as what the final project will look like. Note: this is all subject to change, because we intend to be responsive to your feedback throughout the semester!

This is not your usual project

Most of you are probably used to assignments and projects with a well defined goal and outcome. Specifically, there is always a right or wrong answer and at the end of the project, you are expected to come up with a functioning artifact. Not so here.

It is the Impossible Project!

As the name suggests, your project (to build a unified, global community) is in some sense impossible. It certainly is impossible to achieve (at least in its letter) in a semester. So in some sense you are expected to “fail.” Or more precisely, you are very likely to fail if you use the same metric of success that you are used to in your other classes.

This uncertainty can be scary: embrace this open endedness of the Impossible Project! We will definitely help y’all along the way but you do need this mindset shift to succeed uni (each of your) classes.

What if we “fail” at the end of the semester?

As mentioned above, your group is more likely to fail to produce a “result” (at least in the traditional sense) by the end of the semester. So you might be worried about what happens to your project grade then?

First of all, take a close look at the requirements of various components of the Impossible Project in the rest of this webpage. You would notice that most of the emphasis in grading is on the PROCESS and not the results.

More importantly, for us, you “failing” in the traditional sense is more than fine. We learn more when we fail than when we succeed. We are hoping that this experience will help you go forward and work on building community in the age of (generative) AI (to the extent that you can/want to). More pragmatically, for the grading as long as your group carefully documents how and why your proposed solution failed and what would be your group’s next steps if you could work on this project after the semester is done, you will be fine!

Group Formation

We expect to form groups of size three (or four depending on class size). Kenny will form the groups as stated on the course schedule.

Logistics

Contribution of your project score to final grade

The project in total is worth $50\%$ of your final grade.

Here is how the $50\%$ weightage for the project will be further divided down:

Project Component	$\%$ of FINAL course grade
Group HW 1 Submission	$5+5=10\%$
Group HW 2 Submission	$5+5=10\%$
Group HW 3 Submission	$5+5=10\%$
Group Final Submission / Finale presentation	$10+10=20\%$

Group Score vs. Individual score

For each of the four components of the Impossible problem is divided $50\%$ into groups score and $50\%$ for individual score.

Everyone in the group will get the same score for the group score for HWs 1-3 and the final presentation. Note that this is worth $25\%$ of the total grade and for future reference, we will refer to these points as group score.

We will talk about the individual score (which is based on peer surveys) later on.

Project Components

Listed below are the various components of the project. Note that all of this is subject to change, but we’ll be clear on these changes, and allow you to provide input on those changes, throughout the semester!

HW 1: Understanding the problem and existing solutions

Your goal in the first part of the project is not to solve the problem, but to understand the challenge of building a unified global community in the age of (generative) AI and, more specifically, to understand what other people already know about the problem and what they are currently doing to try to address it.

Too often, technologists jump into problems they don’t understand and try to solve them. At best, these solutions rarely work. At worst, they often cause more problems than they solve. There will always be unintended consequences of technology. One of the most important parts of your semester-long project (and thus your grade on it) is that you show us you’ve done your homework and at least understand the potential for these kinds of unintended consequences. That work starts now!

OK, enough yammering, let’s get to what you have to do! There are two graded parts to Part 1 of the project:

75% of your grade will come from your submitted report:
- You will submit a PDF report that addresses everything below. The report has to be at most six (6) pages long for groups of 3, or (7) pages long for groups of 4 (not counting references, any appendices, or your Team Participation statement, which we cannot promise to read).
25% of your grade will come from your peer feedback. In class, we’ll ask groups to swap projects (randomly assigned) and then provide, via a two minute presentation, constructive feedback on another group’s project. This feedback will be graded by us based on what you present in class.

Report Components

In your report, we want you to tell us about:

A. What community is
B. Specific challenges or opportunities for building community, and organizations and/or people that are working to address these challenges.

For Part A, you will review resources related to the following research question: What is community?

(15 points) Each team member should review one academic paper that helps to answer the above question.
1. Tell me how you found each paper (we encourage you to use Google Scholar, but you are welcome to use any tool, such as the new OpenScholar tool) and provide the APA citation. Just list all 3 papers, I don’t care who found which one (3 points)
2. Tell me, in 1-2 sentences per paper, what each paper tells you about the research question. (6 points)
3. As a group, compare and contrast what was most similar across the papers you looked at, what was most different, and what was most interesting, with respect to the above research question. (6 points)
(15 points) Each team member should review one popular press article, YouTube video, or podcast that addresses the above question. Summarize them as follows:
1. Tell me how you found each artifact and provide a link to each. (3 points)
2. Tell me, in 1-2 sentences per artifact, what each tells you above the research question. (6 points)
3. As a group, compare and contrast what was most similar across the artifacts you looked at, what was most different, and what was most interesting, with respect to the above research question. (6 points)
(10 points) Each team member should have a discussion with an LLM of their choice about community building in the age of (generative) AI
1. Tell me which LLMs you used (they can be different for each of you!). (3 points)
2. In 2-3 sentences, each of you should summarize your discussion (in your own words) - what did you learn about the above research question from the LLM? If your answer is “nothing,” explain why. (6 points)
3. As a group, compare and contrast what was most similar across the conversations you had, what was most different, and what was most interesting, with respect to the above research question. (6 points)

For Part B, you’ll do the same as the above, but for a different research question: what do we know about factors that can help or inhibit us from building a global community? Note the instructions below are copy/pasted from above for clarity.

(15 points) Each team member should review one academic paper that helps to answer the above question.
1. Tell me how you found each paper and provide the APA citation. Just list all 3 papers, I don’t care who found which one (3 points)
2. Tell me, in 1-2 sentences per paper, what each paper tells you about the research question. (6 points)
3. As a group, compare and contrast what was most similar across the papers you looked at, what was most different, and what was most interesting, with respect to the above research question. (6 points)
(15 points) Each team member should review one popular press article, YouTube video, or podcast that addresses the above question. Summarize them as follows:
1. Tell me how you found each artifact and provide a link to each. (3 points)
2. Tell me, in 1-2 sentences per artifact, what each tells you above the research question. (6 points)
3. As a group, compare and contrast what was most similar across the artifacts you looked at, what was most different, and what was most interesting, with respect to the above research question. (6 points)
(10 points) Each team member should have a discussion with an LLM of their choice about community building in the age of (generative) AI
1. Tell me which LLMs you used (they can be different for each of you!). (2 points)
2. In 2-3 sentences, each of you should summarize your discussion (in your own words) - what did you learn about the above research question?. (4 points)
3. As a group, compare and contrast what was most similar across the conversations you had, what was most different, and what was most interesting, with respect to the above research question. (4 points)
(20 points) Your team should identify two non-profit organization working on one of the community building challenges or opportunities identified in B.1 or B.2. For each non-profit:
1. Explain how this non-profit organization is working on community building. (8 points, 4 each)
2. Categorize the work the non-profit organization is doing in at least two of the following roles (6 points, 3 each):
  1. Helpers
  2. Change Agents
  3. Rebels
  4. Advocates
3. For two of the roles above that you did not pick for the above question, what is the organization not doing that you think it should or could be doing? (6 points, 3 each)
(10 points) Based on what we’ve learned thus far in class, what can you as a group say about the role (generative) AI plays in your chosen aspects of community building or fragmentation in general?

Part C (No points awarded without this)

Please provide a Team Participation Statement. To receive any credit for the (entire) assignment, the team participation statement should have the following:

Information on the specific parts of the assignment that each team member contributed to. This should cover all questions. Note that we do not need significant details, a few sentences should be enough
A statement by each team member that expresses their explicit agreement for the above. I.e. something like “I agree that this statement reflects the distribution of work in our group. -Your Name”.

Team Participation Statement does not count towards the page limit

The Team Participation Statement will not count towards the page limit (which is 6 for groups of size 3 and 7 for groups of size 4.

Submission Logistics / Grading

Deadline: 11:59pm on Tuesday, February 17th.
All submissions must be made on Autolab

Don’t forget to fill in the peer survey

Don’t forget to the Peer Survey 1, which is due 11:59pm on Wednesday, February 18th.

HW 2: Identifying your subproblem and beginning to think solution

Grading

75% of your grade will come from your submitted report: You will submit a PDF report that addresses everything below. The report has to be at most three (3) pages long (not counting references, any appendices, or your Team Participation statement, which we cannot promise to read).

25% of your grade will come from your peer feedback. In class, we’ll ask groups to swap projects (randomly assigned) and then provide, via a two minute presentation, constructive feedback on another group’s project. This feedback will be graded by us based on what you present in class.

Report Components

This is a group assignment, there is no individual responses or submission

There is a three page limit for this submission! I will not read (or grade) anything beyond three pages.

In HW1, you thought about what community is, how we can build it, and what inhibits community growth. You also looked at some organizations working in this space.

The overarching goal of all of your projects is to create a single, thriving, global community. In HW2, I’m asking you to narrow your focus to a more specific sub-goal that you can tackle, and then start to think about generative AI’s role in your project:

Part A asks you to take what you developed in HW1 and define a specific (sub)goal for your project. You will also identify an organization working on this problem, to remind you that others are already engaging with it. Part A also asks you to explain 1) why this is your goal—that is, what problem would be addressed if you achieved it and how solving this problem will eventually lead us to a world with a thriving, global community, and 2) what you know about what causes the problem.
Part B is brief, and asks you to think about how generative AI (primarily, though you may also reference non-generative large language models) is part of the problem.
Part C then asks you to think about how generative AI might be part of the solution, taking into account evaluation, limitations, tradeoffs, and so on.

How much should we write for each part?

Use the points distribution as a guide on how to allocate the 3 pages to various parts

Note:

Part A [50 points]

What (sub)goal should we choose?

The easiest way to think about your project (sub)goal is to address a current impediment to the formation of a global, thriving community. But I am more than open to solid projects that make the case they will lead to a thriving, global community that come to this in other ways!

Identify a (sub)goal for your project that will eventually lead us to a thriving, global community.

[5 points] The what - Tell me what the goal of your group (at least currently) is
[20 points] The “why you picked it” - Tell me why you picked this goal, i.e. why it is meaningful to you and why you think it is the best goal for a project in this course. One easy way to do this is to tell me about other goals you thought about and why you opted for this one instead.
[20 points] The “why is this a problem” - Provide background on your proposed project goal and what is currently known about its causes. Your response should be cohesive (i.e., not three separate mini-essays written independently), reasonably comprehensive, and include:
- 3–5 references to relevant prior academic (broadly construed, ask me if you’re not sure) work.
- 2–3 open questions your team still has (e.g., causes you do not fully understand, or concepts you need to explore further)
[5 points] The “who has already thought about this” - Identify one organization working on the chosen sub-problem identified. Explain how your chosen organization is connected to your project goal.

Part B [10 points]

Explain how (generative) AI is part of the problem, i.e. how it serves as something that will stand in the way of you achieving your goal.

A response that receives full credit will:

Be coherent and reasonably comprehensive
Explicitly reference concepts from course lectures
Draw on ideas from course discussions and assigned readings

Part C [40 points]

Now I want to understand how you see (Generative) AI as being part of the solution. For this question (things will change later in the course, perhaps), I would like you to assume you’re building on top of an existing, open-source, open-weight model (generative or not, language or multimodal), e.g. the Olmo family of models. Your response should explicitly address the following points, some of which will likely intertwine in your answer:

What specific task will you leverage generative AI to perform?
Why is this task relevant to your project goal? I.e., why this task and not some other task?
What process will you use to fine-tune the existing model to do this task? Make use of the “Pipeline 2” discussion in class for your answer.
How would your model integrate with or help existing groups or organizations working on this issue (e.g., the organization identified in Part A)?
Is this a short-term, medium-term, or long-term intervention? Why?
How will you evaluate your model?
- Refer explicitly to at least three Design Justice principles, and explain how they shape your evaluation approach.
- As discussed in class, evaluation is the most important part of this section—write accordingly.
Who will be involved in the design, development, and deployment of this tool, and why these and only these people? How are you going to get these people to work together?
Why is this solution better than a non-AI alternative (e.g., paper-based processes), or better than doing nothing at all?
What are the anticipated costs of implementing your solution, and why is this a better use of resources than alternative interventions?
What feedback loops, risks, or unintended consequences might your model introduce?

Should I pretend my idea is perfect and will solve everything?

No. It is not only acceptable—but expected—to be critical of your own proposal. You will not receive full credit if you present your tool as a perfect or complete solution.

Be Specific!

Vague responses (e.g. “the public should be involved, we will have them vote to work together”) will not receive significant credit. Be as specific as you can, even if you admit to being unsure about your choices.

Part D (No points awarded without this)

Please provide a Team Participation Statement. To receive any credit for the (entire) assignment, the team participation statement should have the following:

Information on the specific parts of the assignment that each team member contributed to. This should cover all questions. Note that we do not need significant details, a few sentences should be enough
A statement by each team member that expresses their explicit agreement for the above. I.e. something like “I agree that this statement reflects the distribution of work in our group. -Your Name”.

Team Participation Statement does not count towards the page limit

The Team Participation Statement will not count towards the page limit of 3 pages.

Submission Logistics / Grading

Deadline: See Schedule page
All submissions must be made on Autolab

Only one person in the group needs to submit this time!

Don’t forget to fill in the peer survey

Don’t forget to the Peer Survey 2, which is due the evening after the project submission deadline.

HW 3: Preparing for your midpoint presentation

Submission Details

You will submit a PDF that contains both a slide deck and an (optional, but strongly recommended) appendix that addresses all Homework Components. There should be at most seven slides.

An Appendix is allowed

If there are details that you could not include in your slides but you think will be useful for me while we grade your submission, you can include it with an appendix. The appendix can be at most two (2) pages and has to come directly after the slides in your PDF Submission

Create the appendix first

I recommend that you prepare the appendix first and then distill its content to the infographic.

Don’t do work twice!

You are going to use these same slides (aside from changes made in response to feedback) for your midpoint project presentations, so make sure your slides cover only what you can address in the 8 minutes you have for your midpoint presentation. Put everything else in the appendix!

Homework Components

You should address all of the following in your slide deck (and supplemental appendix, if provided). Note: I need to see all of the stuff below addressed, but the slides in particular need not be exactly aligned with these bullet points (e.g. you might not have an explicit slide for each bullet point, but you may want to explicitly call each one out in your appendix).

Subproblem [30 points] What is the sub-problem of Creating a Global Community that your group has identified, why did you select it, and what does it have to do with global community? If your submission does not convincingly make the case that your chosen sub-problem is related to building a global community, you will lose essentially all points for this homework. More specifically:
- Tell me about your problem, at a high level (the zoom out). How does your problem represent a (hopefully major) impediment in the Current world to reaching the vision of the world articulated in Future world below? (Hint: In our “funnel” metaphor we’ve been using, this is forcing you to think about the wide part of the funnel)
- Tell me about your problem, at a narrow level (the zoom in). What chunk of high level problem from the bullet point above did you choose to bite off, and why? (Hint: In our “funnel” metaphor we’ve been using, this is forcing you to think about the narrow part of the funnel)
- Make sure that you are somehow giving me an elevator pitch for why this is the right problem to address.
Current World [20 points] Given the problem y’all have identified in the previous question, what causes and is caused by the problem you’ve focused on?Your answer should explicitly include the following:
- Three academic references that identify the reasons that have led to your chosen sub-problem and tell us what they say (i.e. cite the references!)
- A clear description of what the underlying things are that lead to the problem you’re focused on, what things the problem your focused on causes, and what the implications are for global community.
Future World [10 points] How will your problem look like in some imagined future world with a thriving global community? Specifically, what does your ideal world with such a community look like? Be imaginative and bold here. The future does not have to look anything like the current world (in fact if your future world is similar to the current world then you have not gone far enough!) (Hint: I really mean a thriving, global, community. Don’t tell me how this world is going to operate with a mostly global, or mostly thriving, community. What does it look like with a totally global notion of community.)
Plan [30 points] What is your group’s proposed plan to go from Current world to Future world? Why will it be effective?
- Your plan should start off from the specific zoomed in problem above in the Current world and end up in the zoomed out Future world with a thriving global community.
- You should also address, at a minimum, the following questions:
  - What would be the immediate short-term steps that your group will take? What is the timeline for these steps?
  - What would be the medium-term steps that your group will take? What is the timeline for these steps?
    - Clearly articulate how if your short-term steps were successful, they would set the stage for the medium term steps.
  - What would be the long-term steps that your group will take? What is the timeline for these steps?
    - Clearly articulate how if your medium-term steps were successful, they would set the stage for the long term steps.
    - The end result of your long term steps should be your ideal future world.
  - What is the common thread that connects your short, medium, and long term solutions?
  - What needs to happen so that each of these steps are successful? In other words, in terms of how we talked about this in class, you should be thinking about the following questions: - How does change happen? - What is stopping this change? - Or, who is stopping this change, and what are their incentives for doing so? - How long will it take to overcome those barriers?
- It is OK (and expected) that as you move from short-term to medium-term to long-term steps, the details would get more vague and that is fine. - I want to make sure that your short-term steps (which would be the most detailed) lead to something in the future and it is not the case that the short-term steps lead to nowhere in particular.
Course Content [10 points] - Tell me explicitly where content from the course helps you address your answers for the Current world, Future world, and Plan sections.

Team Participation Statement

Additional Participation Statement Details

Please note, there is a new third bullet for the participation statement.

Please provide a Team Participation Statement. To receive any credit for the (entire) assignment, the team participation statement should have the following:

Information on the specific parts of the assignment that each team member contributed to. This should cover all questions. Note that we do not need significant details, a few sentences should be enough
A statement by each team member that expresses their explicit agreement for the above. I.e. something like “I agree that this statement reflects the distribution of work in our group. -Your Name”.
A listing of all times that your team met together synchronously, and who was present for those meetings.

Team Participation Statement does not count towards the page limit

The Team Participation Statement will not count towards the page limit of 2 pages for your appendix.

Deadline: See Schedule page
All submissions must be made on Autolab

Don’t forget to fill in the peer survey

Don’t forget to the Peer Survey 3, which is due the first working evening after the project submission deadline.

Midpoint Project Presentation

You will have 8 minutes to present your projects to the class for your midpoint project presentation. Additional important details:

Your presentation should be less than 8 minutes, and more than 6 and a half minutes. Anything outside this range will lose points.
Your presentation should incorporate feedback received on HW3, but should otherwise cover the same content as listed there. You will not be penalized for not covering everything in detail, but should get to each of the 6 bulleted points, even if briefly.

Not everyone needs to present!

Incorporate feedback!

You will receive feedback from Kenny about your HW 3 submission; make sure you incorporate the relevant changes into your presentation!

Final Submission and Presentation

High-level details for Project Slides & Appendix Submission

Final Submission Details

You will submit a PDF that contains both a slide deck and an (optional, but strongly recommended) appendix that addresses all Final Submission components (see below). There should be at most eight slides. If there are details that you could not include in your slides but you think will be useful for us while I grade your submission, you can include it with an appendix. The appendix can be at most four (4) pages and has to come directly after the slides in your PDF Submission.

Project Slides and Report must be self-contained

I will grade your slides and appendix as a self-contained entity. This means, most importantly, that anything you would want me to know about your project should be in there. The actual in class presentation will be graded separately. I encourage y’all to use the slides and appendix as complementary submissions: i.e. there is no need to repeat something that appears in the slides in your appendix.

Create the appendix first

I recommend that y’all prepare the appendix first and then distill its content to the infographic.

High-level details for Project Presentation

Presentation Details

For full credit, project presentations should:

Be between 7-8.5 minutes long.

Cover all content from the Final Submission Components, at least in part, except for the new sections (#s 6 and 7 below). Given the time restrictions, some parts of your project will receive more attention than others, and that is perfectly OK, but you should touch on all of them.

Be for a general audience. Specifically, you can assume people know what (generative) AI is, what the high-level goals of the course project are, and are aware of the idea of the historical tools you are using, but should not assume knowledge about your specific subproblem or solution. Note that this means a lot of the details are specific to the course should be in the appendix only.

Final Submission Components

The components of your final submission should be exactly the same as those used in HW3, with two important additions. Point distributions have also changed. Specifically, your final project submission and presentation should include:

Subproblem [15 points]. Exactly as described above.
Current World [10 points]. Exactly as described above.
Future World [10 points]. Exactly as described above.
Plan [30 points]. Exactly as described above.
Course Content [5 points]. Exactly as described above.
Use of Received Feedback [20 points]. I want to know how you made use of the efforts made in and out of class over the last few weeks. Specifically, please address the following, where in each case you are explicit about the feedback you received and what you did to improve your project based on that feedback. Do not tell me how you could have improved your project based on the feedback, or how you plan to. I just want you here to point to specific parts of your project that have been improved since your previous submission in response to feedback. Specifically, I want to hear about how you incorporated feedback from:
- Your HW3 submission (from me).
- Your midpoint peer feedback presentation (from your peers and me, see the slides for my feedback, and the Piazza post for peer feedback).
- Our practice presentations
Going beyond Received Feedback [10 points]. I want to know what effort you made to go beyond feedback on your project over the past few weeks. Specifically - what did you do to improve your project beyond where it was at for your HW3 submission that went beyond the feedback you received? Your answer might include:
- New ideas your group had that did, or didn’t, make it into the project
- Significant changes to your subproblem or solution based on new things you read
- …

Team Participation Statement

Please provide a Team Participation Statement. To receive any credit for the (entire) assignment, the team participation statement should have the following:

Information on the specific parts of the assignment that each team member contributed to. This should cover all questions. Note that we do not need significant details, a few sentences should be enough
A statement by each team member that expresses their explicit agreement for the above. I.e. something like “I agree that this statement reflects the distribution of work in our group. -Your Name”.

Team Participation Statement does not count towards the page limit

The Team Participation Statement will not count towards the page limit of 4 pages for your appendix.

Submission Logistics / Grading

There are 20 points assigned to the final submission. Your in-class presentation will be worth 5 points, and your slides and appendix will be worth 15 points.

What are we looking for in the in class presentation vs. the slides+appendix?

We will grade the in class presentation based on how effectively y’all communicated components 1-6 above to a general audience. Your slides+appendix will be graded on how well you addressed components 1-8 for Kenny and Atri.

Project Slides/Appendix Deadline

The slides+appendix are due on the date listed on the course schedule. All submissions must be made on Autolab. Only one person in the group needs to submit.

Don’t forget to fill in the peer survey

Don’t forget to the Peer Survey 4, which is due on the date listed on the course schedule

Project Presentations: Will be in the location and date listed on the course schedule.

You must be present at the presentations to receive credit, even if you are not presenting

Individual Score

Survey Details

Each group member will fill in a survey rating their own and their other group member’s contribution to the impossible project.

Peer Survey

Peer Survey Questions

Each group member will rate their group mates (including themselves) under the four categories below. These scores will then be used to divide the team’s points so that individual students’ survey grades reflect how well they contributed to the overall result. The table below explains what the different numerical values for various categories mean.

Category 0 points
(Strongly Disagree) 1 points
(Disagree) 2 points
(Agree) 3 points
(Strongly Agree)

This team member was reliable This team member missed all meetings and did not contribute deliverables This team member missed some meetings and turned in poor quality work While this team member may have missed a meeting, they provided useful contributions This team member was consistently present and prepared, delivering quality work

This team member contributed in a way that respected other group members N/A: This team member did not interact with the group in any capacity This team member was unkind or regularly disagreed disrespectfully This team member was mostly courteous and respectful This team member was always courteous, or made others feel welcomed and valued

This team member was open to feedback and compromise N/A: This team member did not interact with the group in any capacity This team member was unwilling to listen to others and did not compromise This team member often collaborated but could sometimes be dismissive of other viewpoints This team member consistently collaborated and incorporated feedback

This team member's participation was important to the success of the group This team member did not contribute, or contributed in a way that undermined the group This team member contributed but their contributions lacked quality or relevance to the group's success This team member often contributed in a way that advanced the group This team member frequently contributed, or their contributions were essential

Submitting the survey

The peer evaluation survey will have to be filled on https://cse.buffalo.edu/teamwork . You will evaluate yourself and your group mates in all the categories in the final rubric.

You will submit the peer-survey four times. They are due by 11:59pm on the dates listed in the schedule:

The workflow

Here is the workflow for each of the four peer survey submissions:

Between 11:00am seven days before the deadline and 11:59pm on deadline date the website above will be ready for you.

Log in with your UB login credentials.

You will then fill in the survey: the website will ask you to evaluate yourself and your group mates.

For what time is the peer survey for?

Since there are multiple peer surveys, for each peer survey rate yourself and your group mates for the work done since the last peer survey.

How the individual score will be calculated

Survey part of the Impossible Project grade

Each of your peer survey scores will be converted into a fractional score $\rho\in [0,2]$. We will reveal the exact algorithm after the surveys are submitted but roughly if everyone in the group did equal work (as reflected by the survey responses), then all group members will have $\rho=1$. Otherwise, those that did more work will have a $\rho$ value closer to $2$ and those that did less will have $\rho$ value closer to $0$.

For each of the four submissions, the individual score part of the grade will be calculated as $\rho\cdot$group score.

What if all the individual scores exceed $25\%$ of the grade?

It is possible that the total of all the four indivudual scores in total exceeds $25\%$– the excess will contribute to the Bonus part of the grade.

Category	0 points (Strongly Disagree)	1 points (Disagree)	2 points (Agree)	3 points (Strongly Agree)
This team member was reliable	This team member missed all meetings and did not contribute deliverables	This team member missed some meetings and turned in poor quality work	While this team member may have missed a meeting, they provided useful contributions	This team member was consistently present and prepared, delivering quality work
This team member contributed in a way that respected other group members	N/A: This team member did not interact with the group in any capacity	This team member was unkind or regularly disagreed disrespectfully	This team member was mostly courteous and respectful	This team member was always courteous, or made others feel welcomed and valued
This team member was open to feedback and compromise	N/A: This team member did not interact with the group in any capacity	This team member was unwilling to listen to others and did not compromise	This team member often collaborated but could sometimes be dismissive of other viewpoints	This team member consistently collaborated and incorporated feedback
This team member's participation was important to the success of the group	This team member did not contribute, or contributed in a way that undermined the group	This team member contributed but their contributions lacked quality or relevance to the group's success	This team member often contributed in a way that advanced the group	This team member frequently contributed, or their contributions were essential