Assessing group assignments

Assessing group assignments poses some challenges. For students who are more familiar with being assessed as individuals, the prospect of their grades being reliant on other students can be daunting.

The information provided here has been developed as part of a suite of topics relating to Group assignments.'Assessing group assignments' is Topic 11 in that suite.

As with all assessment, it is important that there is a logical alignment of learning objectives, learning tasks and assessment criteria.

Focus

• rationale for assessment
• awarding a common grade
• acknowledging individual contributions
• assessing product or process or both

Theoretical base

To be useful, assessment methods must gather evidence that is closely related to expected learning outcomes (Palomba 2001). Both teachers and students need to be aware of what these anticipated outcomes are (Webb 1995). Do we use group assignments so that we can measure individual learning which occurred in a group setting, or group learning from group work? Do we aim to assess a group product or the process the group went through in order to produce that product, or both?

There needs to be close alignment between the learning objectives we set to underpin a group assignment, the instruction we implement and the assessment of the outcomes.

It is acknowledged that assessment needs to both valid and reliable (Brown & Knight 1994; Nightingale, Te Wiata, Toohey, & Magin 1996). Hence, if a major element of the rationale for using a group assignment is to encourage the development of collaborative skills in students, then that should be incorporated into any assessment device. To assess the written product of a group collaborative effort does not necessarily represent a valid assessment of many of the skills developed by individual members of that group.

As the major purpose of assessment is to evaluate and give feedback on learning (Brown & Knight 1994), it needs to be clear to students that how you will assess a group assignment represents a valid evaluation of the actual learning you anticipate will come from the group experience. As a significant reason for using group assignments is to give students learning experiences which will help prepare them for the workforce (Boud, Cohen & Sampson 1999; Casperz, Wu & Skene 2003), feedback on group assignments needs to incorporate commentary on skill and attribute development. As well, ideally students need to be given opportunities to reflect on and record their own analysis of such skills that the workplace is seeking in today's graduates (Candy, Crebert & O'Leary 1994).

Teaching and learning ideas

How to assess?

Group grade = awarding the one mark to the team

1. All students receive the same grade, but it should represent a small percentage of the total assessment for the Unit (Brown & Knight 1994).
2. Award a group grade and include a teamwork related question or questions in the exam to allow for individual responses (Brown & Knight 1994).
3. Award a group mark and adjust for individual students who you have become aware of through reports to you from group members (Mello 1993).
4. Award a group grade (for product and process) - e.g. 16/20 for product, so that each individual student receives 16, and make an extra 10 marks available for process. Students negotiate what percentage of the extra 10 marks each student deserves (Brown & Knight 1994).
5. Award a group grade (for product) - e.g. 17/20. Assume there are 5 members in the group. Multiply the 17 by 5 to get a total of 85 marks available. Students then negotiate, based on established criteria, the distribution of the 85 marks, stipulating that no individual can receive more than 20/20 (Brown & Knight 1994).
6. Award a group grade, plus an individual grade for a separate individual reflective journal account of the group experience (Hounsell, McCulloch & Scott 1996).

Advantages and disadvantages of awarding a group grade:

* source: Kagan (1995)

Individualised grade = the mark each individual student ultimately receives as a result of marker allocation, negotiated outcome, self and/or peer assessment, adjustment to group grade for individual students.

1. Design the assignment into sub-tasks, each of which is awarded a grade. Students identify in the final product which sub-task each individual member completed (Brown and Knight 1994).
2. Allow group members to accumulate marks during semester, by recording and submitting their weekly attendance at meetings or tutorials, weekly contributions to the assignment, and other task related activities. Allocate final group grade and adjust for individuals based on accumulated points (Hounsell, McCulloch and Scott 1996).
3. Assess group assignment by evaluating:
   1. performance - attendance at meetings, minutes from meetings, rotation of roles
   2. product - oral presentation or written assignment
   3. reflection - a reflective journal (Hounsell, McCulloch and Scott 1996).
4. Award a group grade and tutor then interviews each group and determines if marks need to be adjusted (Brown and Knight 1994).
5. Have each member of the group submit their own version of the group's product (Hufford 1991).
6. Each student writes up own report. Each student completes a secret contributions questionnaire for themselves and for other group members. A ration of mean individual contributions to mean rating for group work is used to moderate the grade given to the individual's written assignment (Johnson and Miles 2004).

What to assess?

1. Product only.
   1. award a group mark on the basis that the final product is the result of the combined efforts of the group.
2. Product only.
   1. design the assignment into sub-tasks and award marks for individual sub-tasks
      * source: University of New England
3. Separation of process and product
   1. the product is assessed by the tutor
   2. the process is assessed by the students
   3. the split may be 50/50 or some other combination
4. Product and process
   1. award a group mark for the product/presentation, with the tutor/lecturer having discretionary power to make adjustments for individual students after appeals from dysfunctional teams
      * source: University of New England
5. Product and process.
   1. award a group mark for product and a bonus mark for individuals based on their individual reflection on the team process
      * source: University of New England
6. Product and process.
   1. award a group mark but moderate it for individual students by monitoring each team's online discussion space/team reflection on their effectiveness
      * source: University of New England
7. Product and process.
   1. award a group mark and moderate it for individual students after reading their individual reflective journals.

Note: whichever method of assessment you use, it is important that the assessment criteria are clearly explained to students before the assignment task is completed.

Listen to Bronwyn Kirby (643 KB) (Faculty of Arts) describe how she focuses on the end product, but acknowledges that the process is looked at if there are problems within the team.

Listen to Bernard Rolfe (2 MB) (Faculty of Science and Technology) share his views of how his students perceive being assessed as a group.

When to assess?

Formative

Ideally, opportunities should be given to students to evaluate their progress during the group assignment process. Encouraging students to reflect regularly in individual reflective journals is worthwhile.

Also, creating opportunities for the group to evaluate as a group is important. This may take shape as an informal evaluation such as a Team Effectiveness Form (20 KB).

Progressive informal evaluation by students will help them to understand better what is required when the more formal summative self and peer assessment tasks are completed.

More formal assessment in stages during the production of the group assignment may also be considered.

Summative

The product of the group assignment task, unless assessed progressively in stages, will be assessed after its completion. At this stage, it can be informative to have student self and peer assessment feedback at hand in order to better evaluate the achievements of the groups. If for example, a group mark is to be awarded, comments from members of a group can be useful in discriminating between the contributions (or lack thereof) of some individuals.

It is possible also to involve students in this summative stage - e.g. one group assesses the product of other groups, whether oral or written. Having clearly established criteria, and sometimes collaboratively developed criteria, is essential at this stage.

Listen to Bronwyn Kirby (423 KB) (Faculty of Arts) comment on her students' attitude to being assessed as a group.

Resources

Kagan, S. 1995 'Group grades miss the mark', Educational Leadership, 52 (8), 68-71.

University of Technology, Sydney, 'Assessing Groups', http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/learnteach/groupwork/unit6.html

Illinois State University, ' Tips for Grading Group Work', http://www.cat.ilstu.edu/additional/tips/grpGrading.php

Lincoln University, New Zealand, 'Guide to Best Practice: Group Work', http://oldlearn.lincoln.ac.nz/tls//groupwork/

References

Boud, D., Cohen, R. & Sampson, J. 1999 'Peer learning and assessment', Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24 (4), 413-426.

Brown, S. & Knight, P. 1994 Assessing Learners in Higher Education, Kogan Page, London.

Candy, P., Crebert, G. & O'Leary, J. 1994 Developing Lifelong Learners Through Undergraduate Education: Commissioned Report No. 28, National Board of Employment, Education and Training, AGPS, Canberra.

Caspersz, D., Wu, M. & Skene, J. 2003 'Factors influencing effective performance of university student teams' in C. Bond & P. Bright (eds) Research and Development in Higher Education 2003 vol 26: Learning for an Unknown Future, Proceedings of the 2003 Annual International Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERSDA), 6 -9 July 2003, Christchurch, New Zealand, Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Milperra, NSW.

Hounsell, D., McCulloch, M. & Scott, M. 1996 The ASSHE Inventory: Changing Assessment Practices in Scottish Education, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment, The University of Edinburgh and Napier University, Edinburgh in Association with the Universities' Staff Development Agency, Edinburgh.

Hufford, T. 1991 'Increasing academic performance in an introductory biology course' Bioscience, 41, 107-108.

Johnston, L. & Miles, L. 2004 'Assessing contributions to group assignments', Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29 (6), 751-768.

Lejk, M., Wyvill, M. & Farrow, S. 1996 'A survey of methods of deriving individual grades from group assessments' Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 21 (3), 267-278.

Mello, J. 1993 'Improving individual member accountability in small group work settings', Journal of Management Education, 17 (2), 253-259.

Nightingale, P., Te Wiata, I., Toohey, S. & Magin, D. 1996 Assessing Learning in Universities, University of NSW Press, Sydney.

Palomba, C. & Banta, T. (eds) 2001 Assessing Student Competence in Accredited Disciplines, Stylus Publishing, Sterling U.S.A.

University of New England 2007, http://www.une.edu.au/gamanual/staff/06_assessment_options.pdf (viewed 27 July 2007).

Webb, N. 1995 'Group collaboration in assessment: Multiple objectives, processes and outcomes', Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17 (2), 239-261.

back to top