Groupwork

There are a number of purposes that group work assessment might fulfil, for example it is often argued that it can; 

• develop an understanding of team working and mirror skills used in employment - whilst simultaneously developing the soft skills of communication, interpersonal understanding, assertiveness over aggression and ‘team’ values rather than individualistic competitiveness. 
• increase student motivation through ownership and agency with respect to an authentic task. 
• Promote bonding and belonging across a cohort, and  developing positive social relationships can effectively support retention and progression. 
•  provide a model of and a forum for the co-construction of knowledge. 
• promote a more independent and interdependent approach to learning and sense of shared responsibility. 
•  provide opportunities to work on authentic/”real world” projects and in multidisciplinary contexts. 
• provide opportunities to develop in embodied and reflective ways core elements of the ESJF: Inclusive practice; awareness of the individual, the psycho-social and the interpersonal, inclusive leadership skills - in a meaningful context and with a view to developing self efficacy, critical awareness and (compassionate) agency (see Gilbert, 2017; Gilbert et al, 2018). 

Whilst on the practical side, group work may reduce the workload around assessing and providing feedback to students, including: 

• reduced time spent on marking. 
• a more manageable degree of tutor support required. 
• more timely support from student peers in the same team.  

In practice there is more work than normally realised with respect to facilitating successful student engagement in group or team work projects. The first of which may be overcoming typical resistances to group assignments.

Despite the perceived practical, ethical and values-based advantages of group assignments, positive outcomes are not always inherent or inevitable. There are many studies that outline serious concerns that poorly facilitated group work (Sorensen, 1981) can have inequitable outcomes, damage interpersonal interactions and undermine learning and teaching (cf  Lejk et al 1999).  

Many students have a very negative attitude towards this form of assessment. This negativity is often linked to: 

• A more individualistic bent - underpinned by the educational narrative that focuses on personal positive outcomes or ‘social mobility’ and/or a belief that team work in work is carried out and evaluated very differently (James et al 2004).  
• The visceral quality of group dynamics - where people do not know how to navigate those who dominate the conversation, those who absent themselves from the group, those who assume leadership without consensus - and where they may not know how to overcome their own reticence and reserve. 
• Concerns about ‘freeloading’ which is a term which Gunn (2007:6)  defines as a student ‘seeming unengaged whilst others seem to be doing all of the work.’ A survey of the literature referring to ‘free-loading’ or ‘free-riders’ shows that these students are generally construed as lazy and as cheating the assessment system by gaining a higher grade than that to which they are entitled.  
• Concerns about being implicitly or explicitly excluded by other members of the group (cf Strauss and Alice 2007) and that this may be a particular issue for culturally diverse groups. Ho et al (2004) reported in their study international students who felt marginalised or ignored in group work and that domestic students controlled the group work process.  

Given the complex nature of group dynamics and the diversity of the student body there are many reasons why we need to disrupt Gunn’s description - and why we have to scaffold or teach group work strategies. Many students are reticent in groups because they lack confidence, feel they have less to contribute than others and perhaps lack the assertiveness necessary for effective group dynamics. They are not lazy or freeloading, and it is time to dispatch that term - and develop successful group practices in and across the curriculum.  

In the current HE climate of ever increasing student numbers there is perhaps a danger of group assessment becoming overused. The timing, extent and continuity of group work throughout particular courses needs to be coordinated - and tutors and course teams need to consider when to set group assignments - and what exactly they are seeking to develop and what and how to assess: 

• If we believe that group work provokes richer and deeper outcomes for participants, then perhaps we must seriously consider awarding a group grade. 
• It may be preferable to promote the use of collaborative learning through team work but focus grading on individual performance. This is common in Problem Based Learning (PBL) where  students work cooperatively, sharing resources, but are often assessed via individual written work. 
• We need to be clear how far we are assessing the product of group work - and whether and how we might assess the process. If the latter, perhaps clarity could be achieved by developing assessment criteria for the reflection on the process together with the students. 

The use of group work assessment should be considered carefully in the context of the module Learning Outcomes, the nature of the assessment task and the time available. A useful question might be, "What is it, in terms of learning, that this form of assessment delivers over and above that of individual assessment?" and “How can I facilitate the successful participation in group assignments of all my students?”

Whilst Drake et al (2006) argue that teamwork and group work are different concepts, the successful facilitation of successful group assignments requires a specific emphasis on understanding group dynamics and the cognitive and emotional processes that underpin teamwork. The successful development of group work processes and group assignments therefore needs to be specifically designed and integrated into teaching practice. Drake et al (2006) describe a module that is designed specifically to focus on the development of skills and understanding in team working through specific facilitation and coaching.    

Students arriving in HE from a very transactional, competitive and individualistic pre-tertiary experience may not know what ‘academic labour’ they will need to engage in to successfully learn and study in HE. If we believe in the power and benefit of collaboration as part of a dialogic, humane and compassionate teaching, learning and assessment environment, then the onus is on us to scaffold and positively model that in embodied and authentic ways in our teaching practice. Particularly, if we want to underscore the power of group work, we need to do that in multiple low stakes ways before we consider setting a high stakes group assignment. Hence preparing students for success in group assignments requires developing a compassionate pedagogy and an interactive and dialogic classroom. We need to develop cohort identity, scaffold multiple ways that students can bond and belong - and we need to take action to develop trust relationships from which good collaborations can emerge. We need to prove to students that they are each other’s biggest assets - and that learning emerges through collaborative discussion, thinking and action. Only when we have demonstrated this in our everyday pedagogic practice, will successful group work on assignments take place.

When setting up group work assessment, matters requiring attention include:

Group task: central to effective group working is the development of a ‘shared mental map’, i.e. common understanding of the goal or direction of the outcomes. This may take the group some time to develop in relation to their own task,

Group assessment: students will also need information about how the assessment relates to the intended learning outcomes and their personal development, how it will be assessed, and the criteria used for assessing the process and/or product.

Group membership: the basic choice is whether groups are student selected or tutor assigned; if the latter, the options are random allocation, or deliberate matching or mixing on the basis of certain characteristics such as interests, ability, diversity or background.

Group mix and grade: Each group construction method has drawbacks and potential impact on student grades. Lejk et al (1999) showed for example, that students in the top ability range averaged 11% lower marks in groupwork when in mixed ability groups rather than in a streamed group. Whereas mixed ability groups were beneficial to the grades of students at the lower end of the ability range. (One way to mitigate this might be to have both individual and group components to a task - and allow students to choose to have recognised the higher grade.)

Group size: the smaller the size the greater the likelihood of trust, close relationships and consonance of aims however may be offset by lack of variety and greater probability of a poor mix. In a larger group though a better mix, the opportunity for each member to contribute diminishes in inverse ratio to the numbers in the group, and discrepancy in the level of participation between high and low contributors will be disproportionately greater. In terms of meeting up outside of the classroom - three appears to be a magic number.

Group interaction: success in groups depends upon developing good interpersonal skills and students benefit from being trained in group dynamics and supported in the development of group-working skills through the curriculum. This is a complex and skilled tutor role. Courses wishing to promote employability may benefit from modules that directly address this issue as subject content.

Group roles and rules: effective group work requires clarity about appropriate interpersonal conduct and roles or responsibilities in the accomplishment of the task; students less familiar with group work may find it helpful to have explicit guidelines on this, and tutors need to monitor how groups are dealing with these issues and make clear the strategies to be used in the case of underperforming students. The formative timing of interventions to support group work is key. The opportunity to raise issues needs to be planned prior to the summative assessment.

A business-like approach: When it comes to facilitating group work - and student reflection on their engagement in group processes - students benefit from considering Belbin’s roles and Adair’s processes. Belbin suggests that there are several roles key to a group’s success - from leader to minute taker - and it helps students to consider these - and to push themselves by changing the roles they undertake in different group tasks. Adair talks about the processes groups pass through: forming, storming, norming, performing - and mourning. Considering these may also help students manage their emotions during a group project - understanding that the troublesome ‘storming’ phase does pass.

Group communication and meetings: Students will need to develop good interpersonal and communication skills throughout group work and this entails some sharing of responsibility and it happens over time - and with tutor support especially initially. Group work can also add to the time and workload pressures that cause anxiety for students; hence, scheduled class time should be allowed for students to discuss group work and make arrangements for future group meetings in the light of factors such as employment and family commitments, travel time and costs, and the needs of any students with disabilities. Students need to organise a shared social media space and or the exchange of personal phone numbers and emails from the outset so that good channels of communication can be opened and maintained. Where students undertake a lot of the tasks outside of class time, they need to be aware of concluding each meeting with clear personal goals and timeline - and a set time and space (online or F2F) for the next meeting.

Online groups: online group work may form a part of any group work project, time poor students may not always be able to meet in person to take the work forward. Rebecca Hogue offers some successful strategies for online groups (see also Demystifying Online Group Projects, with Rebecca Hogue – Teaching in Higher Ed) that offer successful ground rules for effective group work F2F or online: set an authentic and challenging task, set up at least the first group meeting during a regular class, the first assignment = a group agreement using the following prompts:

At least one area of strength for each team member (e.g. Rebecca is good at PowerPoint).

At least one area where each person would like to improve (e.g. Rebecca would like to improve her video editing skills).

What are the different roles each of you will perform in creating your group presentation? (e.g. who will take notes at meetings, who will initiate meetings, who will send out reminders, who will submit the assignments, who will do which parts of the presentation). Note that this may change as you work through your project, but it is good to start with specific guidelines

How often will you meet? When? – Be specific and put it in your calendar

What tools will you use to communicate? (share necessary communication information such as email address or other contact info)

How quickly should group members be expected to respond to emails or other communication?

How will you make sure everyone in the group feels like their ideas are being heard?

How will you deal with potential conflict? (do not overthink this, but also do not say ‘refer to the instructor’, rather talk over how you will initially deal with misunderstandings, also how you will deal when someone is not participating?)

What other guidelines do you have for working together (e.g. we will always assume good intentions).

For supporting student group work, scaffold in class - and also make available (possibly co-produced with students):

Guidelines on the purpose and procedures of group assessment and on effective teamwork (see references), provided in printed/online module handbooks and study packs

Tutor advice on issues of task or group maintenance; it is important to allocate some class time for group planning, with the tutor accessible to groups

Action learning sets: small groups that use a structured process to support members in identifying solutions to problems/issues with which they would like help.

Conflict management: while groups should be largely self regulating, the lecturer should still set up a meaningful context (see Online groups above) - and may still need to monitor group functioning as a formative process, common methods include:

Asking for oral/written progress reports early on and periodically

Making use of group or self evaluation forms as a tool for reflective learning (see example in Appendix 1)

Requiring each group to keep a record of meetings and issues discussed and use these formatively. 

Assessment of group work involves making decisions about several issues. 

What is being assessed, product, or process? 

The primary question is whether what is to be assessed is the product or the process of group work, or both – and if so, what proportion of the assessment will focus on each. In the majority of cases, it is the group product that is assessed, rather than interpersonal process skills. This product mark may be: awarded by the tutor for the whole group; distributed differentially across the group, perhaps through some form of peer assessment; or perhaps through 360 assessment where tutor, self and peer marks are aggregated. 

Distribution of marks for group work 

There are a number of ways of determining how marks will be distributed, e.g. 

• shared group mark - the group submits a collective product and each member receives the same grade;
• group average - individual work, either a full report or a component, is submitted and marked separately, and group members each receive the average of the individual scores;
• individual marks - each student submits either a complete product or an allocated aspect of it, based on the group’s work, and gets the mark for that submission;
• combination of group and individual marks - the group mark is adjusted upwards or downwards using a mechanism for assessing individual contribution, e.g. learning journal, “oral defence” interview, or peer-assessment sheet - see example in Appendix 2: Peer assessment of Groupwork; a variant is to give two grades, one for the group presentation (same mark for all) and one for a reflective piece on the group work experience or for the person’s contribution to the team (individual mark).

Each approach has its pros and cons (as discussed in guidelines prepared by the University of Technology Sydney). 

• The individual assessment system is typically favored by students because it is seen as fair, and there is less dependency on others and less dispute. The main drawbacks are that it can discourage cooperative learning and commitment to the group, or individual submissions can be very similar – which raises issues about plagiarism and collusion. Moreover, it does not take account of students prepared for and committed to collaborative working, which is proposed in this document.
• The same mark allocation system has the advantages of fewer assignments to assess and increased cooperation and mutual learning within groups. Conversely, students may regard it as unfair, especially if group members have not contributed equally, and there may be more disagreements over division of tasks. Again, these responses can be mitigated when students have been prepared for and supported developmentally through positive group work experiences.
• The combined marks - or 360 degree marking system can be perceived by students as fair but,  where it involves self and peer assessment, it might be necessary to guard against the possibility of discrimination or bias - or even from students marking themselves too harshly. One way to mitigate this is light touch second marking where the tutor(s) moderate anomalous grades.

The assessors could be the lecturer(s), the students or both; grading may involve self as well as peer assessment or a combination of these. Where students are engaged in marking, it is crucial to incorporate opportunities for clarifying what the criteria mean. Lejk et al (1997) voice concerns about students’ ability to objectively assess themselves and their peers in group settings: 

“[a]s student experiences illustrate, social processes that are generated from differences of value or belief, or from differences of gender or educational background, also affect the dynamics of learning relationships. Competitiveness, a sense of intellectual superiority over others, or a lack of conviction in the validity of other students’ opinions, can affect the judgements they make of each other’s work (Reynolds and Trehan 2000: 276) ”. 

This can be mitigated initially by developing bonding, belonging and trust relationships across a cohort by utilising a compassionate pedagogy and multiple low stakes group discussions and activities before the high stakes group work, and also by student co-development of marking pro forma in discussion with each other, the tutor and the overarching assessment criteria. 

Hence, for “participative assessment” such as group work in diverse settings to be genuinely empowering for students,  we have to build positive power relations between tutors and students,and also develop such positive relations among students themselves. 

Criteria may be defined by the lecturer(s), the students or through consultation between the two. Group work may be more successful where students are involved in negotiating or determining the criteria  and/or the marking pro forma, as this will clarify what it is that the group is aiming to achieve in the process. In any event there needs to be explicit engagement and dialogue around the assessment criteria to clarify their meaning. 

Criteria for assessing the process may include a range of items, as appropriate to the subject and the group work exercise, such as: 

• attendance at group meetings
• contribution to group meetings/tasks
• time and task management
• problem-solving skills
• group interaction (e.g. roles, listening skills, feedback skills, conflict negotiation)

These explicit process based criteria can help the group to manage the group dynamics especially a first-year group. However Lejk and Wyvill (2001) found that holistic e.g. ‘contribution’ rather than category based approaches lead more directly to a measure of each member’s contribution to the group effort than do category based peer assessment methods such as those above. 

If a student or group of students fail a group work assessment it can be problematic to provide a re-assessment opportunity. The regulations do allow for an alternative reassessment instrument. This may be appropriate where the assessment is group-based but the learning outcomes of the module do not make reference to group work. In other words, if the module does not explicitly need to assess group working ability, then an individual assessment is appropriate. 

It is possible to create a group out of all the students who are referred, but it is often the case that such a group becomes viewed - or sees themselves - as a "sink group" which therefore becomes a problematic option. An alternative could be to ask the student to provide a reflection of what went wrong in the original assignment and what the student could have done in order to improve performance.

Many of the issues that arise with group work are the result of students not being sufficiently prepared for high stakes group assessment. Students need nuanced and sophisticated inter-personal skills and academic literacies that they have to operationalise under time and assessment pressures. These conditions become particularly acute for students with disabilities however in deploying strategies that encourage groups to celebrate and welcome diversity - and to be especially well-organised there will be advantages for all students. Groups will also need to be briefed as to how to support students with disabilities in the achievement of group work assessment.

See the latest Advance HE literature review on Impacts of Higher Education Assessment - especially section 3.2.5 on impacts of group work assessment, 5.1.1 on reliability of peer judgements (see p. 69) and the conclusion p.77. 

There are some exceptionally user-friendly resources to support PBL learning and the scaffolding of student groups from John Spencer - here are a few: 

PBL by Design - looking at the overlap between project based learning and design thinking 

7 Peer Feedback Strategies - which explores how to successfully develop student understanding of and engagement in peer feedback 

Five reasons students should own the assessment process - which explores how to transfer ownership of the assessment to the student - including through developing self assessment strategies 

References 

Drake, R. Goldsmith, G & Strachan, R. (2006) ‘A novel approach to teaching teamwork’ Teaching in Higher Education, 11,1,33-46 

 Gilbert, T. (2017). When Looking Is Allowed: What Compassionate Group Work Looks Like in a UK University. In: Gibbs, P. (eds) The Pedagogy of Compassion at the Heart of Higher Education. Springer, Cham. Available at: springer.com

Gilbert, T., Doolan, NTF, M., Beka, S., Spencer, N., Crotta, M. and Davari, S. (2018), "Compassion on university degree programmes at a UK university: The neuroscience of effective group work", Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 4-21. Available at: emerald.com

Gunn V. (2007) Approaches to Small Group Learning and Teaching, University of Glasgow.  

Ho, E., S., Holmes, P. and Cooper, J (2004) Review and Evaluation of International Literature on Managing Cultural Diversity in the Classroom, University of Waikato. Ministry of Education & Education New Zealand, Wellington. 

James, R. McInnis, C. and Devlin, M. (2002) Assessing Learning in Australian Universities, Victoria: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne. 

King, P. E. and Behnke, R .R. (2005) Problems associated with evaluating student performance in groups, College Teaching, Vol 53, No 2, pp. 57-61 

Lejk, M and Wyvill, M (1999) ‘Group assessment in systems analysis and design: a comparison of the performance of streamed and mixed ability groups’ Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol 24, No 1 pp 5-13 

Lejk, M. and Wyvill, M. (2001) ‘Peer assessment of contributions to a group project: a comparison of holistic and category based approaches’. Assessment and Evaluation Vol 26, No 1, pp. 61-72. 

Leijk, E. (2008) Management of Cultural Diversity in Group Assessment for Learning, Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning Assessment for Learning, Northumbria University. 

 Pitt, E & Quinlan, K (2022) Advance HE lit review on Impacts of HE Assessment and Feedback Practice (Advance HE) 

Reynolds, M and Trehan, K (2000) Assessment: a critical perspective, Studies in Higher Education, 25 (3): 267-278 

Sorensen (1981). Grouphate: A Negative Reaction to Group Work. Washington DC: International Communication Association. 

Strauss, P. and Alice, U (2007) ‘Group assessments: dilemmas facing lecturers in multicultural tertiary classrooms.’ Higher Education Research and Development, Vol 26, No 2, pp. 147-161. 

Websites 

Teaching in Higher Ed Podcast: Demystifying online group projects Rebecca Hogue’s podcast and resources for developing successful online group work.