Published by the Centre for Excellence in Assessment for Learning

Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne

Copyright: The Authors

Cover design: Ellie Foreman-Peck

2

CETL AfL Occasional Papers No. 5

Aims, ethics and values in group work

assessment

Editors: Lorraine Foreman-Peck and Liz McDowell

June 2010

Northumbria University

Centre for Excellence in Assessment for Learning

3

Acknowledgements

The editors wish to acknowledge the financial support provided by the Centre for Excellence

in Assessment for Learning at Northumbria University and the University of Northampton’s

Centre for Learning and Teaching.

4

Contents

Introduction: Group work assessment action research case studies: aims, ethics and values.

Lorraine Foreman-Peck and Liz McDowell.

The case studies

1. Rinke Vinkenoog: The Mist-Covered Mountains of Group Work: Ensuring an equal

contribution from all group members in a biotechnology project.

2. Lorraine Foreman-Peck: Fairness in group work assessment in higher education: an

action research case study.

3. Julia Vernon: Involuntary Free Riding – Group Assessment and Under-performance in

a Computer Simulation.

4. Antony Mellor and Jane Entwistle: Marginalised students in group work assessment:

the effective support of such individuals and associated ethical issues.

5. Julie Jones and Andrew Smith: Facilitating Group work: leading or empowering?

6. Paul Sedgwick: Reflections of a “progressive” teacher in higher education: the

opportunities involved in giving students control.

Conclusions: An analytic survey across the studies: values, ethical issues and aims.

Lorraine Foreman-Peck and Liz McDowell.

About the authors

5

6

Introduction: Group work assessment action research case studies:

Aims, ethics and values

Lorraine Foreman-Peck and Liz McDowell

This volume consists of six action research case studies focussing on the practice of group

work assessment. The research was carried out by lecturers researching their own practices,

from the Universities of Northumbria and Northampton in the academic year 2007-2008.

How did the project come about? Lorraine explains some of the background.

In 2006, I met a student who told me about his experience of independent group work on an

MSc in Business Studies at a University in the UK. He raised the issue of the fairness of the

marking. He had done badly despite scoring highly on all other assessments. This resonated

with my recent experience of having just assessed some independent group work and

finding, to my dismay, that an excellent student had fared badly in what can only be

described as a dysfunctional group. Both students felt that they had been unjustly treated.

These and similar experiences, some of which are documented in the literature, led me to

present a paper at the University of Northampton, questioning the wisdom of group work

assessments, and inviting interested members of staff to explore the issues with me. Later in

the year at the EARLI/Northumbria Assessment conference in Darlington that August, Liz

McDowell (Director of the Centre for Excellence in Assessment for Learning) and I decided to

collaborate on a practitioner research project looking at the issues of aims, ethics and values

in group work assessments. In all we comprised a group of 10 researching lecturers. Liz

McDowell and I became joint project leaders, and we benefited from the minute taking skills

of Jan Sofair, a PhD student interested in this area, and Martha Newson based at

Northumbria University who provided administrative assistance.

The participants

The lecturers who took part from Northumbria were Rinke Vinkenoog who taught a module

on Plant Biotechnology, Antony Mellor and Jane Entwistle, who taught a module on Soil

Degradation and Rehabilitation, and researched together. Two other lecturers, Roger

Penlington and John Tan who teach Mechanical Engineering also took part and made

valuable contributions to the process of the research, but decided not to contribute to this

7

volume because of the pressure of other commitments. The Northampton lecturers were

Julia Vernon, who taught Business Computing, Lorraine Foreman-Peck, who taught the

Philosophy of Education, Julie Jones and Andy Smith who jointly taught and researched the

Foundation Degree in Learning and Teaching, a two year course for teaching assistants, and

Paul Sedgwick, who taught the optional third year of the same degree.

The project organisation

The project was organised so that each group of lecturers met with their project leader to

discuss and plan their research and then met together at intervals for joint workshops and

discussions of issues (including the ethics of the research). The first joint meeting was held in

York in June 2007. Further joint meetings were held in Birmingham and Harrogate. At the

end of the project a selection of the case studies was presented at the EARLI/Northumbria

Assessment Conference August 2008, at Humboldt University, Berlin.

The research approach

The group adopted an action research approach. Because we were concerned to look at the

aims, values and ethics of group work assessment, the approach most prominently

associated with the work of John Elliott was adopted (Elliott 2007). The philosophy behind

this approach is that professional wisdom can be developed through deliberation of what

one considers to be educationally worthwhile and action research can be used in the attempt

to align one’s practices with those beliefs. The approach is strongly self-evaluative, that is, it

requires a degree of self knowledge and self examination. Examination of one’s beliefs and

practices is very demanding, cognitively and emotionally. Lecturers were supported by their

project leaders, colleagues in the local groups and in joint meetings. These meetings

provided a forum for discussion, research training in the action research approach, other

research issues and negotiation of future directions.

Early in the research, the group worked with a common case study plan in mind and this

pattern was adhered to in the presentation of the case studies. Action research comes in a

number of varieties, but all attempt to introduce and learn from an intervention that

addresses a practice problem or puzzle. The research is systematic in many respects: it

follows a series of steps starting with the identification and careful specification of a problem

in practice, the devising of an intervention plan intended to improve a situation, the

collection of data focussing on the implementation phase and an evaluation. The action

8

research approach is flexible in that the evaluation phase may suggest that another spiral of

steps is indicated. This might be because the research questions need to be modified, or the

research methods adopted were not optimal, or the intervention itself needed to be

modified or re-thought. Action research is essentially a systematic way of learning with

others about one’s own work and the way in which it can be improved through research.

Although the group followed a common plan, it was sufficiently flexible to allow for

differences in approach and writing styles. This is to be expected and encouraged since it is a

personal form of research and the group came from very different disciplinary backgrounds.

Nevertheless the case studies are written with the intention of being potentially useful to

others facing the same problems of group work assessment. We thought it important that

contextual features were made explicit so that readers could make comparisons between

their own situations and the authors’ situations where possible. Therefore the nature and

details of the course, module or programme are set out in some detail, and some details

about the students are also presented.

The character of our Universities is also important. Both are post-1992 Universities, with

strong vocational missions. Both have at one time or another been thought of as ‘teaching-

led’. Northampton, at the time of the research was describing itself as a ‘business facing’

University, and ‘less research intensive’ than the traditional pre-1992 universities. Its mission

statement states that the University will meet the needs of individuals and employers,

equipping our graduates for ‘a thriving career in tomorrow’s job market’, while growing links

with ‘business and the wider community’. There is also a commitment to developing

independent learning skills. The University of Northumbria also cites ‘enhanced

employability through innovative and challenging learning and teaching’ as one of its aims.

The issues researched

The case studies focussed on problematic aspects of group work assessment that raised

either ethical issues (such as fairness) or questions of aims (such as collaborative learning).

Within this broad framework, each lecturer found their own research questions.

Rinke Vinkenoog, draws on his experience of group working in his former life as a scientist in

a Bio-technology business. He reflects that his own experience of group working in a firm,

9

could have been better, and today an individualist approach to working is no longer

appropriate or possible because of the ‘rapid increase of complicated technologies’.

Vinkenoog’s module allows students to work on projects that could not be attempted by one

person, but are possible for a cooperating group. The educational aim was to offer an

authentic learning experience. Problems that Vinkenoog identified are those that were

experienced by other colleagues as well. For example group formation: the groups were self

selecting on the basis of friendship, but this meant that two common issues arose: the ‘left

over’ group, and the nature of the dynamics in the friendship group. The ‘left over’ group

were those who did not have ‘friends’, for various reasons, for instance they may have joined

the course late. Sometimes they worked well, but some did not. On the other hand

‘friendship’ groups could mean that friendships came under strain or placed dilemmas on

group members. Other problems identified were to do with timing, an equitable and equally

educationally worthwhile work load distribution and organisation: some groups did not know

how to start or progress the project and left things too late, some students within groups

were avoiding the biotechnical work, and some were so disorganised that they were not

contributing or turning up to meetings. Vinkenoog comments that assessing the groups work

was problematic in that students received the same grade for essentially different work, in

one case work that did not fulfil the learning outcomes.

One further problem that had also been experienced by other members of the research

group was the ‘free rider’; the student who does little, does what is done poorly, yet benefits

from the work of her group. The obverse of the free rider problem is the super star problem,

also identified by Vinkenoog. This is where a student is performing at a much higher level

than the others, who may be hard working, but her ‘super star’ qualities are such that the

group mark is arguably not really as deserved by the others, who may have played a

supporting role. Vinkenoog concluded that he needed more insight into what went on in the

groups, that the students needed a structure, guidance about the division of labour, and that

they needed to ensure that all were involved. In one way or another many of these

difficulties had been experienced by colleagues in our group.

The starting point for Lorraine Foreman-Peck was her experience of assessing a group role

play and presentation, which experience had shown worked well for most students , but not

invariably, on a second year module on the BA Hons. Educational Studies degree. Taking

10

seriously Elliott’s comment that tutors can be blamed for acting unprofessionally only where

there are consequences that can be forseen, she attempted to forestall problems caused by

dysfunctional groups. Investigations showed that some problems were outside her control.

Irregular attendance was one and had many causes, for instance, buses not arriving for 9am

when the class started. In addition , because of incompatible timetables and work

commitments, students were taking an instrumentalist approach to the assignment and were

not meeting to ‘discuss and debate’ in the way envisaged and ensconced in the learning

outcomes and generally required by ‘doing philosophy’! Her investigation showed that the

obstacles students faced were far more various than had been realised. Students placed with

students that had proved ‘dysfunctional’ in year 1, felt that they would be given unfairly

depressed marks and that this was unfair. Her research questions became ‘how can we

make the next group work assessment fair to all students, and can the group work

assessment be designed to encourage philosophical dialogue’?

Julia Vernon’s concerns focussed on the possible negative effects for some students of their

involvement in a semester long assessed simulation carried out with year 2 students, on a

Business Computing programme. Her hunch was that some students, who were not as

technically skilled as others in the group, felt undervalued in their own and others eyes, with

a consequent loss of self esteem. This was despite playing other valuable and essential roles

in the simulation. This is a variant of the ‘superstar’ problem highlighted by Vinkenoog.

Vernon acknowledges that this situation may lead to some students receiving ‘inflated’

grades but this is not the main problem as far as she is concerned. As the project proceeds,

she has noticed that those with high status skills tend to have a ‘strong sense of ownership

and a decreasing degree of trust in the work of others’. Low status members are inclined to

defer to their team mates and to draw back from expressing opinion in decision making

situations, or giving explanations of their own work. This threatened the intention that all

students should be enabled to learn from the module. Vernon set out to investigate how this

situation could be ameliorated.

Antony Mellor and Jane Entwistle, lecturers in Geography, were increasingly concerned with

‘marginalised students’ that is those who did not belong to friendship groups, and felt that

they had to work with ‘strangers’. These students felt ‘disengaged’ or ‘isolated’, either from

the whole year group (third year BSc Geography), or the particular team they were in. They

may not have had a ‘close circle of friends’ possibly because they were direct entrants to year

11

3, and /or because they were mature students, and therefore a-typical: some may have had

childcare commitments and found it difficult to meet others outside timetabled classes.

Some students were thought to have poor social skills and some had poor attendance

records. Their research question was ‘How might we best support marginalised students in

group work and what might be the most effective support measures’?

Julie Jones and Andy Smith were concerned in their inquiry with the issue of the fairness of

individual grades within a group work project. Hence they were concerned to critically

examine the design of the assessment, and the role that the tutor played in supporting group

work. The students are all experienced teaching assistants, working mainly in schools,

supporting learners with special educational needs. They are required to undertake a

collaborative research project on an aspect of special education, as part of the Foundation

degree in Learning and Teaching. They keep a diary of their individual involvement and

produce a reflective statement. Students form groups, not on the basis of friendship, but on

the topic of their research. Whilst no official dissatisfaction had been apparent with the

group assessment, some students had indicated that a minority of students either ‘took a

back seat’ or were excessively ‘dominant’. Jones and Smith adjusted the 2006/7 assessment

weightings to reflect more precisely individual achievements within the group, but kept this

issue under review in 2007/8. They wished to know whether the students perceived the new

weightings as fair. They also undertook to critically examine the role of the support tutor for

the students’ research projects. Were some groups of students over reliant on the tutor’s

direction and perhaps being unfairly advantaged over more self sufficient groups?

The final case study, undertaken by Paul Sedgwick, took as its starting point the aim of

exploring students values and ideas about teaching and learning in an open ended way that is

at odds with the current assessment requirements to set learning outcomes for modules in

advance. This aim was deemed appropriate since the students (experienced teaching

assistants) were undertaking a degree in Teaching and Learning. His concern was how to

design group work tasks that allowed students to explore their own values and ideas about

assessment and collaboration, in a structured and efficient way, given that course contact

time was limited to one day a week.

12

References

Elliott, J. (2007) Reflecting Where the Action is. London, Routledge

13

14

The Mist-Covered Mountains of Group Work: Ensuring an equal

contribution from all group members in a biotechnology project.

Rinke Vinkenoog

Introduction

How it all began – the “Good Old Days”. There was no doubt about it: we would be very rich,

and very famous. Neither the bags of money, nor the scientific fame could escape us. Our

partner, an up and coming Biotechnology firm in one of the most affluent areas of America,

had unlimited resources, a whole army of computer whiz-kids, and the most amazing

facilities. We had the research running, and a box full of the most innovative and promising

ideas. Whilst watching the sun setting over the Pacific, we all agreed that this cooperation

would lead us straight to the Nobel Prize and a Rolls Royce – each.

Ten years later, with my little Nissan Micra stuck in the usual gridlock on the way to work, I

have some time to reflect. What went wrong? Obviously, our expectations were unrealistic.

But could we have done better? What actually were our aims, our expectations – and how

did we in those far away days imagine to fulfil them? We were supposed to “work together”

– but what did that actually mean to us?

Looking back, we could have done better on a number of group work issues. Though our

overall aims were clear, we had not properly identified the role of each of the contributors.

Each of us knew what to do – but there wasn’t a clear view of what the other parties were

doing, and how all the information was coming together. How would our work feed into that

of our partners, and vice versa? The communication structure and the dissemination of

information could have been more clear and transparent. Was our cooperation, our group

work, ever going to deliver more than the “sum of the parts”? We could have done better –

but how?

In order to progress and improve on cooperation and group work, it is important to look back

first, and explore the academic culture in the natural sciences.

15

Group work in the natural sciences

In many Universities, students will encounter group work as part of their education and

assessment. The aims of such group work often depend on the area of study. In areas like

Social Sciences, Education Studies or Management, the actual group work – the group

process itself – is (part of) the aims, and of the assessment. How people interact and work

together to achieve a common goal is an important part of the learning outcomes. In

sciences like biology, my own field, this is far less so. There are explanations for this. First,

scientists are traditionally seen as “Einzelgänger” – soloists who are sometimes lacking a bit

in social skills, but dedicated to their work, slaving away till late by the light of their Bunsen

burner. Though this may be exaggerated (one should not forget that Charles Darwin,

ostensibly the greatest biologist ever, kept a regular and lively contact and correspondence

with many other scientists), truth is that sciences like biology, physics and chemistry in

general do not have a great history in group work, and that students (and lecturers!) often

have the tendency to go their way though work alone. Second, in science – both in academia

and in industry - it’s the result that counts. A biotechnological company may give a group of

employees from different divisions within the company the order to deliver a product – a

construct, a patent – by a certain deadline. How this is achieved, is deemed of little

importance. The company is not interested per se in the group processes along the way. The

only thing that counts is the final product. If that is not delivered in good quality, in good

time, heads may roll...

And yet, cooperation and group work are of increasing importance in biology. The rapid

increase of (complicated) technologies that can be applied to solve biological problems

means that ground breaking research can no longer be performed by one person. The

“Uomo Universale”, that ideal product of a University education, has made place for a team

of subject specialists who have to work together in order to move the boundaries of science

forward.

Biology group work projects in University

So, even though we may be soloists, group work there shall be! The justification for group

work in our Biology curriculum has partly been sketched above: students need to be

prepared to encounter group work in their professional life. In addition, it allows us (both

students and staff) to graze in pastures otherwise out of reach. In a 12 week module,

Biotechnology projects like the one that will be presented below are impossible for a single

16

student, but within reach of a cooperating group. In addition, for us as staff, supervising,

assessing and marking a large number of single projects might take too much time – but

keeping control of a relatively small number of groups, though labour intensive, is within

reach.

Context

Our Group Work assignment: Plant Biotechnology

With these reasons in mind, we had a group work assignment as part of our final year

module Plant Biotechnology, which my predecessors had started. This module is taken by

students from two different programmes: Applied Biology and Biotechnology. The Applied

Biologists are almost without exception students who have done their first two years with us.

The majority of the Biotechnology students however are direct entrants into the final year,

usually from India and/or Malaysia. The total number of students is roughly between 30 and

40. Plant Biotechnology is a 10 credit module, taught in one semester of 12 weeks, with a

workload of 100 hours of study. The assessment consisted of the coursework (40%) and an

exam (60%).

What did we want to achieve with this group work assignment? The usual weasel words

were there: “to engender a spirit of enquiry – to stimulate active exploration and analyses of

databases – to combine data from different areas – to present scientific data in a meaningful

and coherent way”. How were we going to achieve this? The brief given out to the students

was: “Pretend you are employees of a biotechnological seed company. In your group, you

have to design a novel application of a Genetically Modified (GM) plant, which can serve as a

“flag ship” project for the company”. This was going to be assessed in the last session of the

module. Each group would present their proposal for a new GM plant in a 10-15 minute

presentation. This would be assessed on:

Novelty of the idea.

Biotechnological background.

Presentation.

Answers to questions.

In addition, students had to fill in a feedback form in which they evaluated the contribution

of all group members. This evaluation form bore 10% of the group work mark, and hence 4%

of the total module mark.

17

As support, each group had a 20 minute support tutorial in week 8 where they could present

their ideas and progress thus far, and get feedback and advice. In addition, Northumbria

University operates an “open door” policy, enabling students to approach lecturers for

questions and advice outside lectures. For this group work assignment, I encouraged all

students to make use of this.

In general, the group work assignment “went well” – meaning that the majority of groups did

present reasonable to good proposals in week 12. But, over a period of three years I noticed

that there were a lot of “hidden problems”. Overall, the problems could be classified in the

following 5 areas:

Group forming.

How to start, time keeping.

Group process.

Equal distribution of work.

Assessment strategy.

1. Group forming

As my predecessors before me, I allowed students to form their own groups (3-4 students

per group). In most cases, groups of friends were formed – students seek others with whom

they are friendly, have contact inside and often outside university already, and with whom

they in many cases have worked before in other modules already. In some cases, whole

groups lived together in the same accommodation as well. In general, this works well. There

were problems in some groups however. In any class, there are students who fall outside of

the established friendship groups for whatever reason. We always ended up with one group

of “leftovers”. Sometimes, such a group performed really well. Other “leftover” groups

consisted of students who clearly did not have the desire (and/or skills) to cooperate with

each other, and who indeed requested to be able to work on their own. This raised an

ethical issue: are we allowed to force people into groups – with potential damaging effects

on their marks? In the “friend groups”, other problems occurred: the group work sometimes

put established friendships under pressure. “We are really good friends”, John told me, “and

I don’t want to run the risk to damage our friendship. But... she is not working hard enough,

and we are left with all the jobs.” I would later see some stunning examples of the

complications to which “friendship groups” could lead.

18

2. How to Start? Time keeping

The group work assignment is a lot of work. I stressed this to the students in the first week,

and advised them to “get together soon, start working, and keep on working regularly over

the semester”. From a student’s point of view, the matter probably looked a bit different.

This was not only their first week in Plant Biotechnology, but the first week of their whole

final year. They had to start their final year project (30 credits, as opposed to 10 credits for

Plant Biotechnology) and many other 10 and 20 credit modules. The first milestone, the

support tutorial, was far away in week 8 – and not even assessed. The assessment was at the

ultimate end of the semester – time enough! Besides, how should they start? “Design a

novel GM application” – but how? What steps did they need to take, how should they

approach this – how to divide the labour if one can’t yet oversee what has to be done? Some

groups delayed the start of their research until “later”. As I had not put a structure of

guidance in place other than the one tutorial and the vague “you are welcome to discuss

your project anytime”, this went largely unnoticed from my side.

“You go.” “No, you! I went last time!” The whispered conversation outside my

door was brought to an abrupt end when the door was opened, and Milly was

forcefully pushed in by her friends, who immediately closed the door behind her

to prevent an early escape. I should not have been surprised: Milly was always

chosen as delegate, as with her black hair and green eyes she was deemed to

be the most likely candidate to convince me that a late submission of work for

her and her friends was educationally a really good idea. Milly picked herself

up from the floor, beamed her most charming smile at me, and said: “About

the Group Work... actually, we don’t know what to do!” This was week 10. I

had seen (part of) the group in the support tutorial, and noticed they had not

progressed much beyond some pretty general ideas. I had given them advice

on possible ways forward, but now had to find out they were still pretty clueless

on how to organise themselves, and to get the presentation on the rails – with

only two weeks to go!

(extract from research diary)

This was an extreme example – but it became clear that many groups struggled with how to

start and progress in the assignment.

19

3. Group process

In the initial set up, I as lecturer was an outsider and had very little insight, let alone control,

over what happened in the different groups. Anxious to find out how the groups functioned,

I started to ask how the work was distributed within each group. One group (Milly et al)

stated that “all of them did everything together”. That sounded pretty inclusive, but not very

efficient. Some groups came forward with well worked out lists of tasks, which showed that

not only were they well under way, but also they had indeed come to a fair distribution of

work. A particular group presented me with the following: “Mark and David: constructs,

biotechnology and downstream physiological effects; Anna: choice of promoters and

transformation techniques; Carl: slides and ethical issues”. This worried me – for a final year

module Plant Biotechnology I wasn’t particularly happy with Carl polishing the PowerPoint

slides and exploring one or two ethical issues. How was he going to meet his

(biotechnological) learning outcomes? Would the group itself be happy with what seemed to

me an unequal distribution? The group did not see any problem: Carl was a computer nerd

after all, and did indeed a very good job in putting together a very slick presentation, on

which he obviously had worked hard. I realised that in not specifying what I expected from

the students, I left the door open to this sort of situation. If at the end of the process all four

of them got the same mark – what did they actually get these marks for? What was I testing,

what was I assessing? In the case of this group, the answer would be different for each group

member.

4. Equal distribution of work

In the evaluation form at the end of the semester, the students were asked to indicate in

percentages how much each group member had contributed to the final presentation. In

addition, they were asked to comment in words on the participation of each member,

including themselves. “Surprisingly”, not once did somebody give him - or herself a low

percentage or bad comment! In most groups, all members seemed to have been

“reasonably” happy with the distribution of work, although in the majority of cases students

deemed that the work had not been perfectly well distributed. Distributions like “student A,

30% - student B, 30% - student C, 20% - student D, 20% were fairly common. In most groups,

such distributions still satisfied students that there had been a “fair enough” distribution of

work to justify equal marks for all. Or, at least fair enough for them to not bother about

complaining.

20

Each year, however, there was at least one group where the members were clearly not

content. In one case, a certain group member had clearly not been pulling her weight. In

this group, a student had only ever turned up to the first meeting. In that meeting, she had

hardly said anything, and had left without being offered or taking up any specific role. She

was present at the final presentation, but had not seen the work her group members had

prepared, and had hardly produced anything herself. The little she had prepared turned out

to be insufficient and irrelevant. She was unable to answer any question I directed at her,

even the most basic ones. I had told the students that their group work would be rewarded

with a group mark – the same for all members – unless there were “clear indications” that

the work presented was not the work of all members. In this case, and in few other cases, I

gave separate marks to the different group members. The whole affair left me with some

questions. Why had this happened? Had the girl been outright lazy – as her group members

judged? Or were there cultural and linguistic problems as well? Again, I found that I did not

have enough insight and contact to judge. What happened more frequently, and was more

difficult to deal with, were groups where the suspicion was that one of the members had not

been pulling his/her weight. This was sometimes brought to light by group members

contacting me to complain – usually quite late in the semester. In other cases, I only found

out afterwards, when reading the evaluation forms, that people had been unhappy. In all of

these cases, I found it extremely difficult to judge. “I have been working very hard on the

group work – I spent hours in the library searching for data...” “It’s unfair of my group mates

to complain... they say I have not contributed to discussions. Actually, I have brought forward

more ideas than any one, but they were all discarded by the others...” “The other three (group

members) are close friends, and just don’t want me around”. Comments like these I heard

frequently from “isolated” group members. Without data, and invariably hearing the story

from both sides at the 11th (or even 12th) hour, it was a frustrating situation.

5. Assessment

Some of the problems with our assessment have already been touched upon. Could I be

certain that a good mark for the presentation meant that all members had met with the

learning outcomes? I had growing reservations about other aspects of the assessment as

well. The whole assessment was based on one 10-15 minutes presentation. All group

members were asked to participate - but how fair an expectation was this in the short time

allocated for each presentation? Individual contributions over the past three months were

all but impossible to judge in this form. As the final presentation was judged, and not the 11

21

week process leading up to that, another danger inherent to this assignment was imminent.

The design of a novel GM plant is a complex issue, which incorporates data from different

disciplines. One group of Indian students had worked very hard on the design of a novel,

sweet scenting GM rose. They had been making good progress and were well under way,

when one of them discovered that due to the absence of a certain biochemical pathway their

design would never work in roses. Though they could have checked this at an earlier stage,

they had been working with great dedication and had delivered good quality – only to find

themselves back at square one. Should there be no recognition for the work leading up to

the final presentation, which sometimes was invisible in the final product? And then of

course there was the group mark – one mark for each member of the group. Fair, unfair?

Ming and Stephanie worked together in the same group. Ming was a brilliant

student of Biotechnology, extremely keen, with a good knowledge and insight

in biotechnology. Stephanie was an Applied Biologist, a quiet, hard working

student who took her study very seriously but who struggled with the more

complicated aspects of molecular biology. As could be expected, Ming took the

lead in his group, and dreamed up a design that in its complexity and

biotechnological background went way above the level of my lectures.

Stephanie had a supporting role: she explored and worked out the biochemical

and physiological background of the plant. She worked very hard, and did a

good job, but admitted to me feeling that “it has been Ming who had done the

real work”. Their group got a very high mark. Though all four group members

contributed and all worked hard, the height of this mark was largely due to

Ming’s contribution.

(extract from research diary)

To summarise, more and more I came to the conclusion that this assignment could be

improved:

• The supervisor had far too little insight into what went on in the groups and during

the semester.

• The students were lacking a structure – how to start, how to divide the labour, how

to bring the different strands together, and, very important: how to ensure that

everybody is involved?

22

Both for me, but particularly for the students, this “group work” introduced in week one was

a huge mountain, which they had no idea how to tackle. To make matters worse, in contrast

to an exam where at least the work ahead is visible, in this group assignment the peaks and

ravines in the mountain are obscured. To paraphrase one of the most evocative Scottish

songs, in week one students are standing at sea level, and are staring at the “Mist-Covered

Mountains of Group Work”. How to lift this mist, and guide them safely over the passes?

Intervention

Intervention – structuring the group work assignment

I did not want to change one jot or title of the learning outcomes – my intention was to make

certain that all students would meet these, and to help students along the way. The brief

remained exactly the same: design and present a novel GM plant application. In order to

make the road ahead more clear, I introduced two extra milestones along the way. Groups

had to hand in two progress reports at different stages. Overall, the time table of the

assignment now looked as follows:

• Week 1: brief + extra info (written) on what was expected of the group and its

members

• Week 2: formation of groups

• Week 5: progress report 1

• Week 8: support tutorial

• Week 9: progress tutorial 2

• Week 12: presentation + evaluation

The assessment weightings had been changed as well:

• Progress report 1 10%

• Progress report 2 15%

• Presentation + final report 75%

The last part (“Presentation and final report”) was composed of the actual presentation

(powerpoint/oral), answers to questions (oral) and final proposal (written). The latter part

would contribute to the majority of the marks in the “Presentation and final report”.

Summarising, there were marks to be gained during the process itself, and there was less

23

emphasis on the actual performance during the short presentation, but more on the actual

design and its biotechnological, biochemical and physiological background.

Structuring the group work: progress reports

The main difference in the new set up was the introduction of the two progress reports. How

were they going to help the students and the supervisor? The progress reports should

contain:

• Provisional title

• Short introduction on the topic: problem, proposed solution

• Overview of different aspects to be investigated

• Minutes of group meetings held thus far

• Distribution of work between members; aims for next report

Progress report 1:

Each group member individually: short report on what individual has done thus far in the

assigned task to him/her.

Progress report 2:

• Overview of project thus far – progress since report 1

• Minutes of meetings

• Aims to be achieved for final presentation

• Distribution of work

• Individual report as in 1.

By addressing the different parts of the progress reports, a much needed structure became

visible for the students. The first report could still be relatively general. At this stage, the

whole concept could still be an idea, backed up by a minimum of actual research. The

overview of “aspects to be investigated” could well be presented as a series of questions.

Even a limited preliminary literature search will indicate the presence or absence of literature

relevant to the topic. In some cases, student ideas were either so detailed or so exotic that

no literature at all could be found. The earlier students realise this, the better. This allows

them to adapt or completely change their topic. They would not have lost any marks: the

marks for progress report 1 on the first topic would still stand.

24

Once students had decided what kind of GM plant application they had in mind, they could

make a list of what needed to be sorted out. The timing of progress report 1 forced them to

write these questions down at a relatively early stage, and hence to visualise them. The next

logical (and requested) step obviously would be: who will do what? The first part of the

work, the first leg up the mountain, could now be overseen and the work distributed over the

group members. Individual and group aims could then be set: for the next meeting, and

ultimately for the next progress report. Finally, students were requested to write a short

report on what each of them individually had done thus far. This set up would have several

advantages. First, it would make the role and contribution of each group member

transparent. This would hopefully bring an end to the woolly situations we had in the past: “I

think you haven’t done enough.” “Oh yes, I have done loads!” Students who really did not

carry their weight could now be identified. But this wasn’t just meant to be merely a

parasite-detector. By letting students spell out their efforts and contribution, they would be

able to convince their group members and themselves of their importance within the group.

Like Stephanie, many students had felt that although they were part of a group, the “real

work” had been done by others – they felt like “second rate” group members who “did not

do that much” or “not so important things”. This could actually undermine the confidence of

the students, who then would be less motivated or even afraid to fully contribute, but rather

keep themselves in the shadow. In this new set up, the whole group decided on which areas

of study were needed, and who would tackle what – and the progress reports kept a record

of those decisions. This should give each student a chance to fully participate, and see his or

her “raison d’être” within the group. If the distribution of work was skewed in a way that

raised my eyebrows (like in the case of Carl who did not touch any biology in his

contribution), I had the chance to intervene. But how to make certain that this really would

be group work – that the result would be more than the sum of the parts, and that all

students met with the learning outcomes? In progress report 2, I asked the students in their

individual sections to identify how their work had supported the work of the group as a

whole. Students were responsible for their own part, but also for the project as a whole.

Results

Experiences with the new set up – did it work...?

The biggest advantage of the introduction of the progress reports was that it made the whole

process more structured and easier to oversee. I had no complaints at all from students or

groups who “did not know where to start”. In general, students were happy with the

25

guidance provided by the reports. What I did not foresee, is that though it made life easier

for them in one way, the reports themselves actually constituted a lot of work. I heard that

remark several times, whereas in previous years few comments about the workload were

made. The students did not mind, as in general they enjoyed the assignment (a remark

which again I heard more frequently than in previous years!), but the general feeling was that

the workload was too much for “only” 40% of the module mark. I agreed, and for next year

have raised the contribution of the group work mark to 50% of the total module mark.

Overall, the reception by students was very positive. They made good use of the structure

provided, and enjoyed the “real life” scenario. Though the new set up brought extra work for

me as well (marking the progress reports), it gave me much more insight in what was going

on in the groups, and it allowed me to support the groups much better.

Not all groups hit the ground running. Naomi and her group scored a low mark for both

progress reports. Though they had met several times, they had hardly made any progress. It

looked like nobody had been able to get the bull by the horns, and make some decisions. My

feedback on both reports was the same: get organised – identify areas of research, set

reasonable aims and get cracking! After the second progress report, Naomi acted in a

surprising way:

“We knew perfectly well that we had not made much progress... though we

met frequently, it looked like everybody in our group was waiting for the others

to come forward and decide what to do. After the second progress report, for

which again we had a low mark, I decided to take things into my own hands. I

called a meeting, in which I took the leading role, and dished out tasks to each

group member. To my surprise, the others accepted it, and even seemed to be

happy with it! I was quite surprised that I have been able to do this... Normally,

I am the type of person that waits for others to decide. I’m happy I did this. I

learned quite a lot from it”

(extract from research diary)

Others had problems with the distribution of roles within the group as well.

Lie came to see me, a worried look over his normally happy face. He told me

that in his group, it had been decided that he would be the “leader”. Now, he

26

complained, it looked like everything was down to him – he had the feeling that

the others only worked when he told them to, and were waiting for him to

think, and decide what each should do. A look at the progress report showed

that all four members of Lie’s group had worked hard, and all produced work of

a good quality. So what was the problem? “When your group decided that you

would be their leader”, I asked Lie, “did you discuss what that actually would

mean? What is your task as a leader – and what will be the task of your three

friends?” Lie thought for a moment, and shook his head. “We didn’t talk about

such things at all”, he admitted. (extract from research diary)

These two examples highlight that the group process itself can be tricky. In both cases, the

problems were solved internally, and both groups worked well and to everybody’s content

afterwards. Both cases show however that it’s not only the division of work within the

groups, but also the division of roles – will there be a leader, and if so, what will be his or her

task? I had not talked to the students about this at all. My interest was raised after Lie’s

story. I asked all groups after the exercise whether or not one they had a “leader”.

Interestingly, only half of the British groups had one – and in most cases, this had happened

“naturally”, without discussion or “official proclamation”. The majority of Malaysian groups

had deliberately appointed one of their members as group leader. Cultural background can

play a significant role in group work processes, something I had not been aware of before.

A waterproof system...?

As said before, one of the advantages of the progress report was to make each contribution

more transparent – which was going to help each student, the group and me. But was this

system waterproof? I thought it was – until I read the minutes of the group in which Zak and

Babs were working together. Babs had put the minutes together:

Meeting 1. We discussed several ideas. Zak thought of the following... Zak proposed... Finally,

we chose to work on... Zak remarked that...

Meeting 2. Zak reported... “This might take too long”, Zak said...

Good old Zak. Hadn’t he been active! There was just one snag with Zak – he had not

attended any of the meetings of his group. I knew that for certain, since he had told me

27

himself. Zak, the eternal nail in many a lecturer’s coffin, “could not be bothered” as he

confessed to me, because “Plant Biotechnology was boring”. Whatever he was, Zak was

always open and honest to me about what he did and (alas, more often...) did not do. So

what did his name do in the minutes? Babs, who at that stage had more than just group-

member like feelings for Zak, had tried to protect him and just made up entries in the

minutes in his name! It would not have helped him much – what Babs could not do was

write his individual report for him, which indeed was missing. Babs had tried to cover up for

her friend – an act I could understand and even admire to a certain extent. But where did

this leave her group? In what position did this put the other group members, who now faced

the difficult choice to either become part of a conspiracy to protect someone who did not

pull his weight, or become a “traitor”?

Conclusion

The introduction of the progress reports and the reshuffling of the assessment were aimed at

making the group work assignment more transparent and more accessible. This was

intended to help both individual students, groups, and me as supervisor. In general, this

worked. Students were enthusiastic about the progress reports, even though they

constituted an extra work load. The students welcomed the introduced structure that made

the path ahead more visible. Also, they appreciated (and in many cases made good use of)

the possibility of gaining marks along the way. At the time of the final presentations,

students were confident about their work. They could look back at their portfolios, and see

the long road they had travelled. Individual students could clearly identify what their

contribution had been, and how that had fed into the final presentation. Students

appreciated the exercise as a “real life situation”, complete with minutes of meetings. They

felt that exercises like this were a good preparation for their later professional life.

It’s not all gold that shines of course. Of the problems highlighted in the old set up, I had

answered a few. Others (like the group formation) I left unchanged. And as has become

clear from the last three examples presented in the previous sections, the “group process”

still has the potential to face the students with many a problem.

There’s a deeper, ethical issue as well. This was brought to light by Klaassie, during a group

work assignment in a different module. “You promised us this would be independent group

work”, he complained, “and then you take our independence away by proscribing us what to

28

do.” Klaassie was right. In the Plant Biotechnological group work, on one hand we tell the

students they have to work “independently” of the lecturer, design their own project, and

solve their own problems. On the other hand, we force them fill in progress reports in a

proscribed format, which will be assessed and accompanied by feedback. Is this just me as

supervisor, desperately trying to be in control? Where is the fine line between control and

support? I started explaining that in a biotechnological company, it is the result that counts.

How that came into being, is of minor importance (although with patent issues in mind

companies nowadays are keen on data recording!). If we promise students a “real life

scenario”, should we not give them the freedom of “real life conditions”? The problem is

that this is not real life – it is University. The group members are not well trained scientists

with years of experience, they are students, and as such entitled to adequate support and

feedback. Some students, like the highly intelligent and independent Klaassie, experience

this as unwelcome restrictions. The vast majority of students welcome this structure and

support however, and thrive with it.

To conclude, the re-structuring of the group work assignment has addressed four of the five

problem areas. The biggest advantage of the current set up including the progress reports is

that it introduces structure and transparency for the group, but also for each of the individual

members of the group. The students now have the possibility to continuously see where

they and their group are going, and equally important, where they came from. With regards

to the mist-covered mountains of group work, the students are now equipped with a map

and a compass. But once underway, pretty soon the group effort should make even the last

mist lift, and unveil “chì mi na mòrbheanna”, those mystical mountains of the Gaelic folk

song we started with, in all their glory.

29

30

Fairness in group work assessment in higher education: an action

research case study

Lorraine Foreman-Peck

Introduction

Group work assignments are understood here as those requiring students to work

independently of the tutor, wholly or partly outside class time, in order to collaborate on a

‘product’ of some sort, such as a presentation, role play, or business plan. Such assignments

have become an accepted part of higher education, and in some degrees play a major role

(Thorley and Gregory 1994). This case study set out to explore the practice of group work

assessment on a philosophy of education module that had been running for a number of

years. The purpose of the case study was to gain some conceptual clarity in a confusing

curriculum area. For instance cooperation is a positively valued aim of group work

assessments, yet our system of sifting people for entry into the job market requires grades to

be attached to individual effort. This inevitably leads to tension between the needs of

students for individual effort to be rewarded and the aim of a curriculum that attaches a

grade to a group outcome (Foreman-Peck 2009). Similarly the problem of the fairness of

such assessments has been recognised for some time, particularly the problem of ‘free riding’

students, those ‘bad apples’ who obtain a group mark on the back of the effort of others.

The problem of fairness is however more pervasive than this, covering not only inequitable

treatment, but also the lack of well grounded defensible judgements.

Practical action research (Carr and Kemmis 1986, Elliott, 1978, 2007) was chosen as an

investigative approach, since it explicitly incorporates reflection about the aims and values

embedded in our curricula and is organised so that thinking uses evidence. It is a form of

practical philosophy that focuses on teaching and assessment decisions. It also has practical

advantages for busy lecturers in that data collection, becomes part of (and should enrich) the

teaching (Foreman-Peck and Winch 2010).

Although the general nature of problems people may experience when they work in groups

has long been recognised (e.g. Douglas 1976) and accounts of lecturers using group work

assignments are available (e.g. Parsons 2004, Parsons and Drew 1996, Thorley and Gregory

31

1994), and recommendations of a general nature are available (e.g. Bloxham and Boyd 2007)

our professional knowledge is currently largely descriptive, normative and unproblematised.

The intention of this case study was to expose problems with current practice, discuss them

with students and colleagues involved in this project, and to try out possibly better ways of

conducting and assessing group work. Conclusions are offered to colleagues in higher

education as ideas that might inform their own deliberations. The research reported in the

case study here, was carried out as part of my teaching during the academic year 2006-07.

The background

The students who took part in this research were taking a philosophy of education module,

entitled Aims, Values and Ethics in Education. An optional, level 2 module, worth 20 credits,

it is part of the Joint and Combined Honours degree in Education Studies. Joint and Minor

students taking the philosophy module choose one other optional modules from

Comparative and International Education, The Psychology of Learning and Teaching in

Educational Settings and Debates in Education. Major students in Education Studies are

required to take all four.

The degree as a whole meets the Quality Assurance Agency’s guidance for the content of

Educational Studies degrees. The philosophy module in particular addresses the principles

that students should be encouraged to engage with fundamental questions concerning the

aims and values of education and its relationship to society, and develop in students the

ability to construct sustained reasoned argument about educational issues in a clear, lucid

and coherent manner (Joint and Combined Honours Student Handbook 2005-06). The

module for 06-07 had 18 students and was taught by me with some guest lectures from two

prominent philosophers of education. The module ran for 26 weeks and met from 9-11 am

one day a week.

The majority of students were aged between 19 and 20 years. Three, however were mature

students. Two of these were working part time as teaching assistants in secondary schools

and wished to become teachers. The third was a part time lecturer in a further education

college. All the younger students wished to become secondary school teachers, apart from

one student, who was not resident in the UK, and was the only English as a second language

speaker in the class.

32

Details of the module: Educational Aims and Module Values

The module aims to encourage students to find their ‘philosophical voices’. They are

introduced to the idea of valid argument and are encouraged to evaluate the arguments of

others both in the media and the academic literature. Students are given opportunities to

practice putting forward their own arguments orally and in writing. The philosophical

approach is mainly analytic ordinary language philosophy, and the texts used are mainly by

Anglo-American authors.

The syllabus content is guided by the centrality of certain concepts in the philosophy of

education, such as ‘education, indoctrination’ ‘conditioning ‘‘teaching, training’ ‘knowledge’

‘evaluation’ ‘moral and faith education’ ‘culture’ ‘curriculum’. ‘Assessment’ as a concept is

also part of the syllabus content. Examples chosen for illustrative purposes aim to be

interesting and topical. This year’s topics included, among others, sex education and the veil.

The module is not, of course, narrowly vocational: the general aim is to equip students to be

citizens, able to understand educational matters, form their own valid arguments and to take

part in constructive debate.

The implicit values of the module follow from the aims and the teaching approach. They are:

• Respect for the opinions and viewpoints of others, listening and responding

appropriately.

• Respect for valid reasoning. The ability to detect poor argument and to engage in

respectful dialogue.

• A commitment to regular attendance and to cooperation with others in

independent group work involving debate and dialogue.

• Active use of concepts and modes of reasoning introduced in the module content.

• A commitment to shared reflection on course processes.

These aims and values are reflected in the assessment strategy.

The module assessments

There are three formal course work assessments. The first is a 1000 word critical analysis of

a paper which they are given on the subject of the aims and concept of education. The

second comprises two parts; a group role play presentation based on the exploration of a

33

philosophical problem in education and a critical review of two other group role plays

presented by their colleagues. The third assignment is a conventional 2000 word essay based

on a title of their choice but agreed with me.

The Group work assignment

The focus of the case study is the second assignment which carries 40% of the marks. This is

split between a role play (20%) and a critical review of two other role plays (20%). For the

role play a group grade is given. Individual grades are given for the critical reviews. In the

past students have been randomly assigned a ‘real’ life scenario and asked to produce

arguments for or against a particular decision. For example a newspaper report featuring

families who had opted for home schooling was the starting point for a prepared role play set

around the dinner party table where the students were asked to engage in reasoned and

evidenced argument defending or objecting to one couple’s decision to remove their children

from school.

Problematic factors

Dysfunctional groups

In previous years the group assignment had been received enthusiastically by the majority of

students, however in each year problems with group dynamics for a minority of students

were reported. Typically at least one group member expressed dissatisfaction with other

members, either because others were irresponsible and let the group down, or they

considered themselves exploited because they had carried a disproportionate workload.

Dysfunctional group dynamics are well known and reported in web discussion groups and in

the academic literature (e.g. Castagna 1997, Chang 1999, Conway et al.1993 Maguire and

Edmondson 2001, Mills 2003, Magin 2001). My expectation was therefore that there would

be at least one group in this class experiencing problems of relating to one another.

Irregular attendance

There were also additional problems. The learning outcomes for the module, are in large

part skills that need to be learnt in dialogue with fellow students and a skilled tutor: for

example the close reading of texts, and good dialogue need to be actively modelled. In the

past attendance on all the modules for this degree had been patchy. The degree as a whole

has no attendance requirements, and many students have part time jobs or childcare

commitments. Roughly half of this present cohort were regular attenders, two students (X

34

and Y), however had a very poor attendance record, and the rest attended irregularly.

Attendance was seen by some students as not necessary, since all course work, assignments,

lecture notes, and exercises were posted on the university’s on web based interactive

learning environment (NILE).

An unsatisfactory consequence of this was that students who failed the group work

assignment through non-attendance could pass on a re-sit basis, but without undertaking the

important learning outcomes required for the module, since it would be impossible to

convene groups during the re-sit period over the summer vacation. Re-sit students are set a

conventional essay. Thus it is possible to meet assessment requirements without meeting

major learning outcomes required of other students

Irregular attendance also meant that students missed crucial learning points, since the course

depended on a shared experiential mode of development. Unlike lectures which can be

relatively self contained, classes in this module depended on linking and building on previous

experiences and shared class reading. Reliance on course handouts and lecture notes put on

the NILE was not a substitute for the course, as some poorly attending students believed.

Discussions with students in this cohort about irregular attendance elicited reasons such as

working to earn money, buses not arriving at the University for 9am, the cost of travelling to

the University being too expensive, illness, childcare problems, and for one student (student

X) the inability to wake up in time (the student lived in a very noisy student house).

Is the assignment meeting the intended aims and values of the module?

A further problem, which at the start of the year was just a vague suspicion, was that

although the learning outcomes of the course were being met by the group work role play

assignment in a formal sense, the basic intention that students meet to engage in

philosophical dialogue, was not being met.

As has been said, the point of the group role play and the preparation for it was to encourage

philosophical discussion, ‘interacting effectively within a learning group in order to debate

controversial issues’ (Course Handbook). My hunch was that students were taking an

instrumental syndicate approach, i.e. dividing the task into segments, working

35

independently, and then coming together at the eleventh hour to patch it together, without

having engaged in discussion except at an organisational level.

Because of the unpredictable nature of the precise problems arising from group work, the

research question had to be found from within the cohort. In order to do this I set a small

exercise (described in the section ‘problem specification’ below) which was based around a

group reading and presentation of a paper which they were given. The assignment was set in

week 2, and students were asked to give a short five minute presentation on their task in

week 5. They thus had three weeks in which to meet and discuss. Two hours of class time in

Week 4 was set aside for students to meet, since variations in their timetables did not make

it possible for most of them to meet otherwise. After the task had been presented and

discussed students were asked to reflect on the process of doing this group work assignment

in terms of what had helped and hindered them in carrying it out. From this early exercise

several issues arose that students had experienced in year one, and which led to two mature

students in the group forcibly expressing the opinion that they had no intention of

undergoing a similar experience in year 2.

The research

Ethics of the research

My intention was to involve the students in the action research and I explained, after the first

exercise, how the approach to researching pedagogical problems could be organised. I

assured them that the information collected would be part and parcel of normal teaching

activity and would be used by us to reflect on course processes. I was mindful of the danger

that normal teaching, could be over taken by the research, so any written reflection or

discussion would be brief. The students were given an information sheet about the research

(as were my colleagues) and they could decline to have their written reflections used, or

could disengage from discussion, without detriment. Anonymity in reporting was assured. In

the event no one objected and there was a general level of excitement about being involved

in research which they thought had future professional relevance.

Collecting evidence and reporting decisions

Throughout the year I kept a journal recording what happened in each session, ideas for

future teaching activity, and notes on previous empirical studies. I was able to do this

immediately after each teaching session, over a coffee break. My evidence also consisted of

36

short reflective exercises which either asked students to think forward about group work

assessments and how they should ideally be conducted, or to reflect retrospectively on what

had happened. Sometimes they were given a structured set of questions, sometimes they

were asked to write short reflective paragraphs. These paper exercises which were

anonymous, were kept as part of the case record. These activities were quickly carried out

and the students were positive about them. In the last session a discussion was tape

recorded, with their permission. This took longer than anticipated as it was impossible to

stop the students talking.

In the section that follows I have organised my narrative chronologically, following the action

steps involved in the action research cycle of actions, i.e. specifying the problem, planning an

intervention, implementing and monitoring it, and finally evaluating its success or otherwise.

At each step some philosophical arguments were tried out. The group work assignment

evoked strong feelings in some students and I resisted some of their ideas before

understanding fully why I thought they were ethically unacceptable. In the chronological

account they are described but not deeply engaged with. In the concluding sections, written

after the events described below, I made an attempt to present more coherent arguments

supporting my initial reactions.

Step 1. Problem specification

I have already cited some general factors that made it likely that problems would arise on the

module. Into the mix should be added my own ideas about assessment practice. Group

work assessment challenged my ideas about good practice, I was not clear why. I felt there

was something wrong about group work assessments where high performing students under

performed and could have done better given an individual assignment, or where poor

performing students gained grades markedly above their grade profile.

The general ideas informing my assessment practices were that course assessments should

inform teaching decisions (i.e be formative), and teaching decisions should be reflected in the

assessments (i.e one should assess only what had been taught). Ideally assessments should

provide practice for subsequent assessments. End of course assessments were more

summative in intention. As with most writers in this area, I believed that the point of most

assessments, in education, should be to inform students about their strengths and

weaknesses and learning needs (Birenbaum, 2006). As with all educational practices there is

37

an ethical dimension to assessments. They should not harm students, they should provide an

educationally worthwhile experience, they should be fair and be seen to be fair.

In order to start to explore these issues, I set a small independent group work exercise. The

students were asked to summarise and evaluate the argument, of a philosophy paper and to

produce their own argument. They were given a template to fill in identifying the arguments

for, and against the thesis being propounded. The paper used was ‘Why we Educate’, chosen

because it was written by a well known philosopher of education, in accessible language, for

a non specialist audience (Barrow 2005). It was made clear that the skills being practised

were relevant to all three assessed assignments and the students seemed keen to practice

them. They were asked to produce a short presentation in class.

The groups were formed on the basis of who was sitting close to whom. There were 5

groups of 4, 3, 2, 4, 3, (two students had yet to appear). As a preparation for the task we

jointly brainstormed answers to the question ‘What factors make for good team work’?

‘What problems might arise’? ‘How might you deal with them?’ The class had no problems

with this, suggestions flowing easily. A room was booked for the students to use for one two

hour session. They had three weeks to complete the task. The resulting presentations were

impressive. They were asked to fill out an evaluation sheet on ‘good team work’ and to write

a paragraph about their experiences. I took these away to read and said I would feed back

the following week.

What became apparent from the feedback (but not the presentations) was that two groups

were failures. The students present agreed with this feedback. One group, (B) had failed to

meet. The other group, (E), had met but had been unhappy together and had not been able

to discuss the paper. Of the successful groups, two consisted of established friends who had

worked successfully as groups in year one. The other successful group (D) contained a

mature student.

The reasons given by one Group B member for their failure to meet was that a group

member student (X), lost the assigned paper and was totally uncontactable. Furthermore

one person in this group said they did not wish to commit the two hours it would take to get

into the University, as they did not ‘trust’ one member of their group to turn up, referring I

38

took it, to student X. In the event only one student in group B did the work and the

presentation, the other two were absent.

Group E reported that they had difficulty meeting because they had the wrong contact

details, when they did meet they felt a group of 2 was too small to generate enough

discussion. They did their presentations individually.

These two groups seemed to have had the most extreme problems but there were problems

reported in the successful groups.

Group A, reported that communication was difficult with an English as a second language

speaker as the philosophical concepts were not ordinary language ones and therefore were

difficult to grasp. On the other hand, another member of the group saw this as a positive

factor in that they had to be more explicit in the expression of their ideas. Although this

group was successful, it contained two mature students who were scathing of the university’s

requirement for group working. One declared that group work, while being part of the

culture of the institution, and therefore something one had to comply with, was ‘irrelevant’.

Group C reported satisfaction with the task. One person felt disadvantaged because she did

not have a home computer. Another said they needed more face to face time to rehearse

their presentation.

Group D, which also had a mature person in its group, managed two meetings. Poor

punctuality was cited as a reason for not being completely happy. They did not seem to have

worked together particularly well or to have enjoyed themselves. One student reported

after the class that the mature student had dominated and they had been unable to express

their views.

At the end of the session the class was divided into 4 and asked to carry out a group SWOT

analysis to isolate the factors that had presented difficulties in group work presentations.

The ‘threats’ were predictable from what had been reported in their written feedback.

They were:

• Incompatible timetables.

39

• Clashing assessment deadlines.

• Poor attendance and commitment from some students.

• Language difficulties.

• Personality conflicts including dominant personalities.

An unexpected factor was cancelled classes. It was explained that modules had been chosen

that ‘bunched’ so that students could organise their money earning jobs and economise on

the cost and time of travel. When other tutors cancelled classes, it became uneconomic to

attend just one. Some students were enrolled on a module that was frequently cancelled.

This meant that some students didn’t attend meetings for this reason. Another surprising

factor emerged from ‘Opportunities’ this was that ‘work shy free loaders were highlighted’.

This was a reference to two students (X and Y).

My comment to the class was that although they had pointed out the strengths and

weaknesses, opportunities and threats, no one had said anything about doing philosophy.

My vision of students engaging in exciting intellectual dialogue did not match the experience

of at least five (out of 16) members of the cohort, and the rest (apart from group C, who

were friends and lived on campus) had worked under circumstances that did not facilitate

dialogue.

This realisation led me to question whether the group work assignment, as currently set up

as a role play, was an appropriate vehicle for the aim I had in mind. As I noted in my research

journal, if a major aim of the course is for students to engage in philosophical dialogue then

this did not seem to have worked in the cases where students lived off campus, and faced

other obstacles.

My next step was to reconfigure the groups into three of six students each, dissolving the

group of two students and reassigning students X and Y to the two groups with mature

students in them. This led to a resigned acceptance but with a demand from one mature

student that they be given the right to ‘oust’ underperforming students. Clearly student X

and Y were seen to be liabilities and feelings were running high.

During the week I received e-mails from the same two mature students in the group who had

been given student X expressing concern this student would ‘depress their grades’. They

40

wanted to know how the group work assessment was to work, whether they would be given

identical grades or be assessed individually. At this point, given the emotional force of their

responses, I suspected that the issue was an unresolved problem from year 1.

I e-mailed a first year tutor to ask about the experiences of this group with group work

assessment.

The response from the first year tutor confirmed that there had been problems with student

X and Y in the first year, on a module which also had a group assessment. The problem was

the fact that neither student X or Y, had made a contribution. The first year tutor’s view was

that the attending students must prepare work for absent students X and Y, for them to

present, in the event that they turned up to the presentation. His reasoning was that in ‘real

life’ employers would expect team members to cover for one another and would not expect

to adjudicate between them about who did what. Furthermore, these difficulties were

exactly what group work was meant to give students the experience of learning to cope with.

In the context of the frequently given rationale for group work, that students should be

taught team working skills useful for employment, this was, perhaps a reasonable reply.

Employers’ needs are frequently invoked in the literature on any discussion about group

work (e.g. Casperz et al 2005, Parsons 2004). However the complaining students were clearly

unhappy with this and took the view, which I did myself, that it is unfair to be given a mark

that you do not earn in an educational context. Similarly it is unfair, to be in effect penalised

by the defaulting students by having to do extra work. Furthermore the argument that team

workers should cover for less conscientious workers did not convince the mature students in

the group, who had worked in teams in industry before embarking on the degree. To be fair,

the first year tutor had also extensive experience of working in a business context.

At this point I determined, with the students, that the research questions we would explore

together would be ‘how can we make the next group work assessment fair to all students’?

with the subsidiary question ‘can the group work assessment be designed to encourage

philosophical dialogue’?

Step 2 Planning for an intervention

Over the Christmas break I rethought the formally assessed group assessment which was to

be introduced in the first session of the Spring Term. I redesigned it so that preparation for

41

the role play could be more focussed on dialogue, rather than spending valuable time on

literature searching. I gave them a choice of papers from which to choose the ones they

would base their presentation on. In order to equalise the work effort they were asked to

present a teaching session broken down into six parts, each part to be about five minutes

long. They were to envisage teaching a class of their peers. The aim of encouraging

philosophical dialogue was to be met by each person presenting an argument and making

sure that it followed from the arguments and considerations that preceded, and followed it.

Coherence and relatedness were presented as a major assessment criterion.

Instead of personal logs recording their own contributions (which in the past had, in some

cases provided contradictory evidence of effort and contribution) I asked the groups to keep

formal minutes of their meetings which were to be signed by each group member as a true

record. This would I thought provide more reliable evidence of what had occurred outside of

my purview. I required just one of these to be handed in by a group Chair appointed in the

session, in effect making at least one meeting compulsory.

On the issue of non attending students, I suggested to the class that if the opting out student

turned up for the presentation but had not come to a sufficient number of meetings, that

they be given the last ‘slot’ which required summing up the points made by the others.

However they would only be permitted to do this if they had sent in a 500 word contribution

to the Chair before the presentation. Failure to send in 500 words meant that they could not

take part in the presentation and would fail. This meant that the groups with known opting

out students could prepare their presentations without detriment. I further suggested that if

the opting out students failed to send a 500 word contribution to the Chair of the group

before the presentation meeting, they would be deemed to have failed the role play

assignment, whether they took part or not in the presentation. These ideas were discussed

with the class. They were invited to think it over, to consider whether this was a fair solution,

and contact me by e-mail with any thoughts.

Step 3 Implementation and monitoring

In discussion one response was that a simpler and more satisfying solution was to put all the

people with poor attendance in one group. I know that this solution has been in operation

on another degree course at another university. It was not an option for us at his point in

time because we had not declared it at the beginning of the course nor put it in the Course

42

Handbook. Even if we had, however, I thought that putting them in a ‘losers’ group did not

seem a responsible response, although at this point it was hard for me to justify my moral

intuition. I argued that as an educator, one shouldn’t give up on people, and that they were

still registered on the course. I argued that some people may have been absent for reasons

outside their control. This suggestion was treated with scorn by one group member. Two

students asked why I wasn’t angry about the lack of attendance of students X and Y, and the

irregular attendance of some of the others. I was, in fact fairly fed up, but I kept this to

myself!

The other suggestion, which had been mentioned before, was that students who failed to co-

operate should be ejected by the group. This too had been tried in other higher education

locations. I argued against this since my moral intuition was that the students should not be

given this right, that it was the tutor’s responsibility to decide who should fail and more

importantly the manner in which they failed. The problem with the group work assignment,

as it had been conceived, was that it was ‘fail proof’. This could not be right, although at this

point in time I was unclear about what this meant.

A lot of ‘what if’ questions were raised by the students. For example, suppose someone

attended the meetings but not the role play presentation, they would fail, but wouldn’t their

absence also depress the grade the other students achieved for the role play? The answer I

gave to this was that if they had worked together they would be able to take into account the

part the missing person or persons played. What if someone misses one of the role plays?

How can they do the comparative report? The answer was that they could not do it and

would fail.

The group were asked to think through my suggestions, possible problems and to e-mail me

with any thoughts they had and we would re-visit the problems in the next session and re-

write the rubric together. I would then discuss any decisions with the Course leader to check

that he had no objections. In the event only one student e-mailed comments and only six

students appeared in the next class due to an exceptionally heavy fall of snow. We discussed

the emerging rubric and the points raised in the e-mail. The e-mailing student student

approved of the signed minutes idea as this ‘would also serve as a record of attendance’.

However she thought the form of the minutes should be presented to the class before she

could ‘endorse’ the idea.

43

She thought that in reality it was impossible for everyone to make an equal contribution,

since the material was too difficult for the student whose first language was not English (I

understood her to be saying) so fairness in terms of effort, was not necessarily guaranteed by

the equal time division of the role play presentation. I said that the extra help that group

members gave to those members who needed more support would be recognised in the

grading. Again I felt this was the right thing to say and it satisfied the group, but at this point

I was not sure whether it was right nor how to do it.

In the next session the rubric was revised and agreed with the students present. We clarified

the point that failure to send in 500 words in lieu of attendance at a sufficient number of

meetings would result in a failed grade and students would not be entitled to take part in the

role play presentation[1]. Failure to take part in the role play presentation, even if the

meetings had been attended, would be a failure[2]. Failure to attend all the role play

presentations would likewise result in a failed grade for the Critical Review[2]. In effect we

established eligibility criteria for being awarded a grade. Thus to get a grade the following

was required:

• Attendance at a sufficient number of group meetings or 500 words in lieu of

missed meetings.

• Participation in own group’s role play presentation.

• Attendance at two other group’s role plays.

I attempted to meet the objection about students who were absent for the presentation

depressing the role play grade by adapting ‘holistic criteria’ (table 1) developed for assessing

student performances in the performing arts. The way in which a grade is reached does not

involve summing individual contributions.

44

Excellent Good Satisfactory Weak

Did the group succeed

in getting the concepts

across?

Were the teaching

methods interesting

and appropriate?

Was your interest

maintained? Did you

feel

engaged/challenged?

Was the role play well

organised? Did it hang

together as a group

performance?

Were there any

distinctive

qualities/points of

excellence or

originality?

Table 1. Holistic group assessment criteria used for assignment 2 role play

I shared the criteria with the students and invited them to use them to assess their peers’

role plays and to use them to inform their Critical Reviews. I also said that I would present

them with my assessments in verbal feedback, to check my perceptions with theirs, so that

we had agreement in judgements. They liked this idea very much and group Chairs were

appointed.

In the next few sessions, in addition to the scheduled course content, I presented them with

a model lesson plan, a model set of minutes and we carried out some exercises into different

teaching methods that they might use, such as hot seating. I originally set aside one session

for preparation time, later adding another at the request of the students.

45

The rubric was set out on NILE (as were all course documents, lectures handouts etc) and I

sent an e-mail to our non-attending students (X and Y) bringing these to their attention and

advising them to contact their group Chairs.

Step 4 Evaluation

The evaluation was in two parts. A short questionnaire on group work processes designed to

see whether philosophical dialogue had been facilitated (see appendix), the second was a

tape recorded whole group discussion reflecting on their experiences of group work over the

year. The first question on the questionnaire was designed to assess the mode of group

working using categories adapted from Waite and Leonardi (2004). The students were asked

to say which descriptive statement most nearly approximated to their way of working, to

determine in effect whether they had adopted a syndicate approach with little non

organisational discussion or whether they had ‘interacted closely’ each contributing to each

other’s sections. They were also asked to reflect on the new rubric, to highlight any impeding

factors and to reflect on my assessment of their presentations. I emphasised that there were

no right answers, that the point was just to see what had occurred within the new guidelines.

Eight students were present and completed the questionnaire.

Group A (4 students present, 2 absent, i.e student X and a student whose first language is not

English). There was agreement that they had ‘interacted closely’. They reported difficulty in

contacting student X, and had to ‘accommodate’ the needs of the student whose first

language was not English. The new rubric was thought to be very satisfactory. It enabled

‘everyone to participate’, it was more ‘structured and organised’, so it ‘was easier to work

together’. The signed minutes ‘showed who attended and who contributed what’; they were

a ‘great idea’. The idea of 500 words from absentees allowed us ‘to consider the person’ and

‘they don’t lose marks if they can’t attend’. The insistence on a contribution ‘was excellent’.

The hindering factors mentioned by two students was the fact they had no choice in group

composition and therefore had ‘student X’ and an ‘imbalance of skills’.

There were two people present from group C. They adopted the group working process of

breaking the task up into sections and every one doing their section (i.e. no dialogue

between the group on the substantive content). On the new rubric, one student commented

that it made no difference to the regular absentees ‘who never turn up’ and ‘let the rest of

the group down’, another student commented that some members were a ‘bit lazy’ and left

46

their sections until the last minute. This group were also unhappy about the composition of

the group and the fact that they were forced to take a ‘bad apple’ (i.e. student Y). Student Y,

despite not turning up for any sessions, had submitted 500 words, contributed to her group’s

presentation and was present at the two presentations necessary for the critical review

(although late for one!).

Two members of Group B were present. They reported that the task had been broken into

sections and everyone had done their bit. However one student said this was not ‘out of

choice’, one person had ‘taken control’ and did not allow ‘room for options’, this person was

‘only interested in her own grade’. One student thought the new rubric took away the worry

of not being able to make meetings and made for a more ‘unpressurised approach.’

During the tape recorded discussion eight students were present. They were asked whether

the group work assignment was worthwhile and whether it would be better to replace it with

an essay or an examination. The general feeling was that it ought to be kept, but that certain

unsatisfactory features should be eliminated. The discussion was lively. For brevity I have

distilled the problems identified by the students and the suggestions made.

While the idea of the minutes was welcomed, some students thought their discussions

should have been audio recorded since the minutes did not reflect the quality of the

discussion they had had.

A huge amount of administrative work was borne by the Chair of the groups and the non-

attending and poor attending students caused a lot of problems in trying to arrange meeting

times. They recommended that more class time be set so that non attending/poor attending

students did not have the excuse of prior commitments. In addition administrative work

could be eased by having a limit of 4 in each group.

The composition of the groups caused a lot of debate. There was still resentment at having

the non attending students allotted to them. They would have preferred self selection.

However one student said that choice based on ‘liking’ was not necessarily the best idea.

There was general agreement that there was a need for attendance requirements for the

degree as a whole, and that student who did not attend for a certain percentage of the time

47

in the first term, (e.g. 85%) should not be allowed to take the group work assignment. This

should be published in the course handbook so that students had fair warning.

The issue of too many group work assignments being set simultaneously on other modules

was raised and it was suggested that better co-ordination was needed across the modules,

although it was acknowledged that in a degree of this design it would be difficult.

Discussion

The research was intended to throw light on two questions:

• ‘how can we make the next group work assessment fair to all students’?

• ‘can the group work assessment be designed to encourage philosophical dialogue’?

To take the second question first. It seems likely that only one group succeeded in

undertaking the quality of dialogue required and that the other groups worked in a more

syndicalised way. It has to be said that these differences were not apparent in the final

presentations, which did cohere satisfactorily and provided evidence of engagement with the

issues. The contribution of Y, as would be expected, stood out for its poor quality and lack of

integration with the work of the others.

On the question of fairness, students were assured that the assessment process was as fair as

possible, in that no one who was free riding was given a group mark. One student, who due

to his sporting and socialising commitments was unable to attend any meetings nor submit

500 words, did fail. In private discussion with him, he accepted that this was fair. Student Y

was careful to fulfil the requirements of the rubric and got a group grade. This was seen as

fair by the students, but her minimal compliance (she had not attended one taught session)

and her evasion of all attempts to discuss her lack of participation with her tutors was

extremely frustrating. The best that can be said is that she did not get away scot free.

Conclusion

In my concluding remarks I attempt to draw together my reflections on the practical and

normative issues raised by the action research. Firstly the tutor has a responsibility to all

group members to give them a fair chance to participate. This involves knowing about the

practical obstacles students face and trying to accommodate these as far as is possible. It

48

was a revelation to me that students living at a distance from campus faced such difficulties

with the transport system. A high proportion of students at this university are home based

for financial reasons.

Secondly care has to be taken over the design of the assessment task, so that as far as is

possible, the workload is equally shared and that the task is focussed on the essential

learning it is trying to facilitate. This cuts out time consuming and inessential tasks, such as

finding suitable source materials. The focus on essential learning should be the case, even if

students subvert or are prevented from carrying out those intentions, because of the group

dynamics they are in. In retrospect the task should have been focussed more directly on

dialogue, perhaps by requesting evidence in the form of audio tapes, and the requirement

for a presentation dropped.

A closely related point is that the essential learning to be acquired is taught. Dialogue and

good/poor argument were extensively discussed and practised on the course and assessment

criteria for good dialogue were derived with the students. However these were not the same

as the assessment criteria for a good presentation, which was what they were assessed

against. This was a weakness in the teaching and assessment strategy.

Thirdly, and more contentiously, the tutor (not the students) has a responsibility to let poor

performing or opting out students fail the group work assignment. Cooperation is a virtue

we wish to endorse in society, but so is the idea of personal responsibility and just dessert.

Students should not be allowed to ‘eject’ students they perceive as unsatisfactory. Only the

teacher has the legitimate authority to fail a student in an impartial manner. So I would

argue it is necessary to think through what a student would have to do in order to fail.

Indeed the possibility of failure is a central to the concept of fairness in assessment, but one

that has been missing from group work assessment (or mistakenly delegated to students).

The idea of failure is essential not only to the logic of learning, but also to stop students who

exploit the good will of others from doing so again and again.

An issue raised by the students was the ‘unfairness’ they felt at having a student in their

group who might depress their grades, for example a student whose first language is not

English. My intuitive response was to say that I would take this into account. In the event

the students in group C who had a non native speaker worked with her to produce a script

49

which she read out. Their presentation was excellent gaining a top grade so I was not faced

with the issue of ‘compensation’. However this issue has still to be thought through in a

satisfactory manner and is of obvious importance where groups containing students with

learning difficulties are concerned.

Group work and its assessment are very complex and require much more research and

deliberation. By presenting this action research as an example it is intended that other

education professionals will be able to formulate questions so that problems with group

work assignments and assessments can be addressed. The case study shows that while we

may wish to promote educationally worthwhile ends through encouraging collaboration,

more deliberation is needed about how it is managed and assessed.

50

Notes

*1+ What counted as attendance at a sufficient number of meetings was left to the Chair’s

discretion.

[2] Students who were absent for genuine reasons may apply for consideration of their case

under the mitigating circumstances policy of the university.

References

Barrow, R (2005) Why we Educate. Prospero, 11, 2 pp 8-13

Birenbaum, M (2006) Evaluating the Assessment: Sources of Evidence for Quality Assurance.

Keynote presentation at the Third Biennial Northumbria/EARLI Sig Assessment Conference

August 30th

Bloxham,S. and Boyd, P. (2007) Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A

Practical Guide. Buckingham, Open University Press.

Carr, W and Kemmis, S (1986) Becoming Critical : Education, Knowledge and Action Research,

London, Falmer Press

Caspersz, D. Skene, J. and M. Wu (2005) Principle and Guidelines in managing student

teams . In the Reflective Practitioner. Procedings of the 14th Annual Teaching and Learning

Forum 3-4th Feb 2002. Perth, Murdoch University.

http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf2005/refereed/capersz.html (accessed 22.4.06)

Castagna, J (1997) Grading Group Projects – discussion group WMST-L October /November

http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/group_grading.html

Chang, V. (1999) How can conflict within a group be managed? Teaching and Learning Forum

http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlfl1999/chang.html accessed 22.4.06

Conway, R., Kember, D., Sivan, A. and Wu, M(1993) Peer Assessment of an Individuals

contribution to a Group Project. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 18 (1) pp

45-54

51

Douglas, T (1976) Groupwork Practice. London, Tavistock Press.

Elliott, J (1978) Action Research for Educational Change, Milton Keynes, Open University

Elliott, J (2007) Reflecting Where the Action is. London, Routledge

Foreman-Peck, L (2009) Employability and the problem of independent team work by

students. Prospero, 15,3, pp6-19

Foreman-Peck, L and Winch C (2010) Using Educational Research to inform Practice.

Abingdon. Routledgefalmer

Magin, D (2001) Reciprocity as a Source of Bias in Multiple Peer Assessment of Group Work.

Studies in Higher Education 26, no. 1

Maguire, S and Edmondson, S (2001) Student Evaluation and Assessment of Group projects.

Journal of Geography in Higher Education 25, no.2 pp209-217

Mills, P (2003) Group Project Work with Undergraduate Vetinary Science Students.

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28,no.5

Parsons, D (2004) Justice in the classroom: Peer Assessment of Contributions in Group

Projects. www.naccq.ac.nz/conference05/proceedingd_04/parsons.pdf (accessed 22.4.06)

Parsons, D.E and Drew, S.K. (1996) Designing Group Project Work to Enhance Learning: Key

Elements. Teaching in Higher Education, 1,1, pp. 65-80

Ransom, L.S (1997) Grading Group Projects – discussion group WMST-L October /November

http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/group_grading.html

Thorley, L and Gregory, R. (1994) Using Group- based Learning in Higher Education, London,

Kogan Page.

Waite, W.M and Leonardi, P. M. (2004) Student Culture vs Group Work in Computer Science,

SIGCSE March 3-7.

52

Appendix

Evaluation of group work processes

Assignment 2

1. Please tick one of the following descriptions that most nearly corresponds to your

perception of how your group worked together (there are no right or wrong

answers!)

a) One person worked on the task and then passed it on to another.

b) We broke the task up into sections and everyone did their bit.

c) We each tackled all the parts and then selected the best results and let that

person do that bit.

d) We interacted closely, each of us contributing to the other students sections.

2. If the descriptions do not capture the way you worked, please describe in your own

words.

3. Were you satisfied with the new rubric for this assignment? Give reasons for your

answer?

4. Were there any factors that hindered your progress on this assignment? Please

explain.

5. Please say whether you agree or disagree with my assessments of the group role

plays.

53

54

Involuntary Free Riding – Group Assessment and Under-performance in

a Computer Simulation

Julia Vernon

Introduction

For several years I have led a module that incorporates a large element of group-work

assessment. The ‘Web Application Project’ runs in Year 2 of an undergraduate course in

Business Computing. Students feel that the project, which is the development of a website

for a local charity, gives them valuable skills for employment, and an opportunity to test their

abilities and show flair in a real-world context. Although the positive aspects of the module

outweigh the negative, I have not felt entirely comfortable with every outcome. The

literature (and, of course, discussions with colleagues and students) suggests that I am in

good company in this ambivalent view of group-work.

Many studies (Maguire and Edmondson 2001, Mills 2003, Gupta 2004, Greenan et al 1997),

note the positive effects on learning which group-work may engender, and others (Knight

2004, Hand 2001) discuss the existence of phenomena such as social loafing, free-riding and

the inequity of workload.

‘Social loafing’ is a term first applied by Latané et al. (1979) to characterise the reduction in

effort from individuals when they are asked to undertake a task as part of a group, rather

than independently. ‘Free-riding’ refers to the situation where one member of a group

depends on the others to contribute the majority of the effort towards completion of the

task (Albanese & Van Fleet, 1985).

Much earlier than this Whyte (1943) discussed the effect of status on the performance of

individuals, noting that lower-status members perform poorly in the group, even in areas

where they possess good skills. Cottrell (1972) suggested that a diminution in performance is

caused by concern with being evaluated by others. Ingleton (2005) highlights the importance

of emotions, particularly those “associated with being affirmed and of being shamed”, have

on the learning of women.

55

Over the four years that I have been leading this module, I have come to realise that some

students appear to lose confidence and engagement during the course of the work, in

relation to other members of their group. The proportion of the work contributed by them

diminishes while that of others increases, and I have come to believe that this is, at least

partly, the result of loss of status within the group.

In this action research case study, I have attempted to counter the negative effect that

working in a group may have on the self-esteem and confidence of individuals, when they are

teamed with students considerably more skilled or more experienced than they are.

Background/Context

Students taking part in the project, the subject of this case study, may be enrolled on an

Honours degree, a Higher National Diploma or a Foundation Degree. I have led the module

for four years, during which, in line with general trends in Computing in HE, numbers have

seen a decline, from 26 in 2004/5, to just 11 students in 2007/8, only 3 of which are

traditional full-time students. Students on the Foundation degree have full-time

employment in various industries including health, education and retail.

The module involves student groups acting as small consultancy firms, competing to produce

a website for a local charity. Group members take on a variety of roles, some of which are to

be found in a real world context, in which they demonstrate different skill sets. Individuals

would expect to take a lead in several areas, and share in carrying out others. Roles as

suggested in the module document comprise:

• Client liaison [building good relationships with the client, finding out their changing

needs, keeping them informed]

• Technical [web site interactivity]

• Creative [look and feel of the site]

• Investigating associated issues – website hosting, search engines, user training, site

maintenance, what to include in a charity web site…

• Document production [using MS Project, producing charts]

• Group leader [overseeing equal contribution, chairing meetings, ensuring

completion of tasks, overcoming slack periods]

• Group co-ordinator [gathering contact details, posting to VLE, keeping all

stakeholders informed]

56

• Meeting organiser [producing agendas and minutes, arranging rooms]

• Report co-ordinator [bringing together all sections of the report, writing the

descriptive comment]

Because of the attempt to create a simulation of team working in the commercial sector,

parallel segmentation, which is sometimes identified as being a way that students might

circumvent group-work requirements, is not discouraged in the module. Group members are

communally responsible for the quality of the overall product, but they are encouraged to

take leadership of different roles depending on their perceived strengths and preferences.

The project runs from October, when the groups form, to May, when they present their

prototype site to the tutor, client and fellow students. The groups receive 5 taught sessions

at the start of the year on such topics as group-working, client liaison and project

management. After this the groups are largely self-managed around set milestones as they

work towards the production of a prototype site. The milestones include assessment

deadlines and arranged meetings. This module is complemented by another running

alongside (a co-requisite module - Web Application Development). This has sessions on

coding techniques, author design, usability etc. and is intended to be a resource for the

simulation module.

It can be seen that this is not a traditional teaching module. Following the short programme

of lectures and seminars at the start of the year, I describe myself to the students as an

‘internal client’. This means I have a set of requirements that differ from those of the

‘external client’, and are connected with process rather than product. These include the set

assignments, of course, but I am also interested in their professional approach to their remit,

and responsibility taken within the group. I act as coordinator, setting up the arrangement

with the organisation (this has been done for several years with the help of the Community

Volunteers Network here at the University), organising the three visits from the charity to the

University and disseminating general information. Students are encouraged to invite me to

some of their meetings, either as consultant or simply to monitor their progress. Each group

has an on-line area within a Virtual Learning Environment (Blackboard) which provides file

storage and a communication facility e.g. for on-line meetings and email. I use access to

these areas to check on progress, and as I see all the students in classes for the associated

module, I am able to monitor how the groups are getting on. Assessed items include a

57

planning document, the main system file, and a post-implementation report with reflection

and evaluation. These milestones are based around a system development framework that

could be expected to be used in the IT industry, adjusted naturally for academic purposes.

The main file details the history of the project, and plans for ongoing development, and

presents sets of designs, project management documents, meeting minutes etc. These items

of assessment are given a group grade, unless students indicate that they would prefer to

receive individual grades.

Visits from the charity are a plenary introductory session in November, for agreeing

requirements; a meeting in January, when each group presents design ideas for discussion;

and the final presentations in May.

At the final meeting the charity organisation we have been working with chooses one of the

prototype sites, and the successful group undertakes to complete the functionality, train the

staff in the maintenance and updating, and launch the site. For this aspect of the project

there is no academic incentive, but of course it is of great value to the students in terms of

experience. Students respond very well to the competitive aspect of the project, and

success, notwithstanding the additional work involved, is highly prized.

Why group-work?

In order to support the collaborative nature of the module all assignments are group-work.

The whole grade for the module will depend partly on other students, so the element of

‘unfairness’, where students may benefit or be disadvantaged by the efforts of others, is

unmitigated by being mixed with grades achieved individually.

An over-riding characteristic of the project which may not always be shared with assignments

in other contexts, however, is the sense that it is a ‘natural’ subject for collaboration. As the

focus of the course is on employability it is appropriate that students have the opportunity to

practise skills and techniques required in the IT industry. All those involved in the module

recognise this, and so there is no pressure from students to change this aspect of the

assignments. The concept of bringing in a consultancy company to achieve a project is one

that students appear happy to accept as taking place in the real world and therefore suitable

to adapt within an academic context.

58

There are other aspects of the project that are less closely aligned to the outside world of

course, e.g. the lengthy process prior to the awarding of the contract, but this compromise is

readily accepted. The expectation at the start of the project is positive; there are many

challenges in the requirements of an unfamiliar exercise, and the idea of working intensively

with others is welcomed. The session we spend, in the early stages of the module, on group

dynamics and the pitfalls that may arise, is received quite light-heartedly by students, who

show no awareness of potential problems ahead. The idea of competing to ‘win the

contract’ is one that appeals to and stimulates individuals during the group formation

process and throughout.

I have taken the decision to detract as little as possible from the simulation of reality, and

this position has been accepted and supported by internal and external moderators, and by

students at all stages of the process, including those who may have experienced some

problems associated with group-working. Student feedback provides evidence that they

appreciate the opportunity to participate in a real project, and gain benefit from the skills

they acquire during it.

I set certain parameters to try to regulate the experience. For example I stipulate that groups

must be of three or four people. Fewer than this would, in my opinion, require a

disproportionate amount of effort from each. More than four may make it easier for a

member to take a passive role, and benefit excessively from the effort of others. Also,

groups who choose to vary grades between members may do so, and we follow a process

which uses mutual agreement to reward members according to the effort brought to the

project, but this is not imposed. More often than not groups prefer to receive the same

grade, even when there is an obvious difference in contribution. I have later chatted to

individual students who recall their strong feelings at seeing other group members putting in

less effort than them, but have at the time preferred to maintain the cohesion of the group.

Research Questions

Possibly the person most likely to suffer doubts about the validity of the process is me.

Naturally, despite the positive elements described, the project is not immune from most of

the issues familiar to anyone who participates in or supervises group-work. I have been

conscious of being responsible, via the structure of the module and the weighting of the

group-work, for the extensive nature of any effects of unfairness.

59

In relation to grades the unfairness may be manifested in two directions. Good students may

be undeservedly down-graded, and others may benefit unwarrantedly from improved

grades. In my experience, the former has not manifested itself. The engagement

engendered by the nature of the project and perhaps the competitiveness felt between

groups has tended to lead to a determination among the higher achievers to maintain the

standards they expect of themselves by putting in more than their share of the work if

necessary. Of course this has been of benefit to those with a lower level of contribution.

However, viewing the matter only in terms of grades is overly simplistic. The internal

dynamics of the group, I suggest, has a profound effect on the level and quality of the

learning for individuals.

There is scope within the project setup for the development and demonstration of a range of

different skill sets – project management, client liaison, meeting management, creative input,

contextual research and programming. All students should have input into a number of

different areas, but it is not necessary to perform in all of these. However previous

experience has suggested to me that some skills are considered to have more ‘kudos’ than

others. Those students able to master the more technical skills experience improved status

within the group, giving them more control over unrelated aspects of the project as well.

One student put it to me as “They think I’m an expert even when I’m not”. As the project

proceeds the status of individuals within the groups tends to become polarised. The high

status individuals have a strong sense of ownership, and a decreasing degree of trust in the

work of others. Low-status members are inclined to defer to their team mates and to draw

back from expressing opinion in decision-making situations, or giving explanations of their

own work. Even students who are highly regarded by their team mates for, for example,

their organisational skills, have less authority in decision making than the technically able. I

am aware that this reduced status has led to a degree of under-performance, in the way that

Whyte (1943) has described.

Students who don’t establish themselves early on as possessing skills necessary to the

completion of the project are in the most difficult position. I would go so far as to suggest

that students who intend at the start of the project to contribute fully to it, nevertheless,

through these effects, find themselves in a position of being involuntary ‘free-riders’. This is

actually damaging to their levels of achievement, and also their confidence and self-esteem.

60

While their grades are inflated, an undesirable outcome in itself, their learning and skills

development risks being degraded, and the project may fail to demonstrate what they are in

fact capable of. This is frustrating to individuals at all levels of participation, but contrary to

appearances, I suggest that the students with the high work load are the ultimate

beneficiaries of this effect, while the ‘free-riders’ are the losers in all ways except one – their

grades.

During this study I have attempted to introduce measures to break this cycle, to support both

the groups and individuals, and to counter the negative effects noted. As a starting point I

reviewed the outcomes of the module from the perspective of the students’ collaborative

working.

Decision-making factors

Among the benefits to the learning of an individual student of engaging in group-work I

would include the opportunity for skills development, particularly communication. The

interaction of, and negotiation between, group members requires problem-solving skills over

and above those provided by the task set. In addition there is the opportunity for reflecting

on their own learning process, something that a Business Computing course may not

naturally lend itself to in all areas.

Secondly, one would expect that students working together, even on diverse tasks, would

learn from each other, from seeing the way their team-mates approach the work, the

different style of product that emerges, and from explanations among the group of what is

needed to accomplish the task. All these forms of knowledge transfer undoubtedly take

place informally when students are set individually to a task, but more particularly during

group working.

An enhancement of these benefits, I felt, would improve both the final product and the

experience of the individual students. I proposed two interventions, one to support

reflection, and the other knowledge transfer, to be carried out during the period when

experience shows that the negative aspects of group work within the module can become

evident.

61

During the Autumn term the groups, this year as previously, worked harmoniously through

the initial client meeting and towards production of the first assignment, the planning

document, and then began preparation for the second client meeting.

Some differentiation did show, during this meeting in January, as most of the interactions

tended to be initiated by one or two people in each group, whereas others looked less

familiar with the designs being demonstrated. Dynamics within the groups were becoming

apparent, with some natural leaders, and others seemingly content to watch and wait.

It is usually following this meeting, and as the Spring term progresses, that any problems

within my groups begin to impact. The project comes under pressure for a number of

reasons:

• There has in the past been a lack of project milestones in this period;

• The size of assignments from other modules tends to increase, distracting students’

attention towards more pressing, and individual, deadlines, and

• The ‘design’ phase of the project is largely completed by the end of January, the

need now is for the underlying functionality, i.e. the technical aspects of the site, to

be developed, in order to support user interaction, data persistence and content

management. These skills, which are being learned by the students in the co-

requisite module, are a considerable challenge. The size of this task is generally

underestimated, and unless a group has a member who enjoys writing code for fun,

its commencement tends to be postponed.

As the project takes a lesser place in students’ attention, group cohesion is inclined to flag.

By the time other distractions are out of the way, and looming deadlines for the project come

back into focus, it is easier for those students who feel they have mastered the technical

skills of web interaction, as required by the co-requisite module, to take a lead in the project.

Although a number of tasks will by now need progressing, implementation of the code is the

one that everyone is now aware of, and those less confident in this area are likely to take a

back seat. This tendency can become a spiral, if active members lose patience and

progressively restrict communication and the opportunity to contribute, while the less

engaged members shed more and more responsibility for the tasks necessary to complete

the project.

62

Interventions

My attempts to break into this destructive spiral took two forms.

I arranged to bring the students together as a whole group for an activity away from the

usual class environment. This session was mediated by colleagues in the University’s Centre

for Academic Practice. This took the students out of their normal working environment. In

addition food was provided, which made it a popular event! Of the students involved in the

project, one, a conscientious high performer, was absent from this session through illness.

The activity was designed to bring issues of groupwork into the open, and develop strategies

to improve group cohesion. The Metaplan system (Schnelle, 2000) was employed. This

method uses workshops to facilitate discussion within groups, to initially identify issues, and

then develop strategies to deal with them. Characteristics of the process are objective

moderators, and activities that support contributions from all participants. In particular the

focus is non-confrontational.

After an introduction to the process, students were each asked to identify, and write down

on cards, three issues, associated with group-work, that affected them. They were then

divided into two groups and arranged the cards according to theme. The most pressing issue

was chosen by vote. Although expressed in different ways, both groups identified unequal

commitment/unequal workload as the issue that caused them most concern.

In the next phase students were asked to suggest strategies in which groups might overcome

the identified issue. These varied from the supportive “carry each other along” to the

punitive “replace slacking team members”. An action plan from the session was to consider

learning styles and group roles, which we subsequently looked at, using the work of Honey &

Mumford (2006) and Belbin (2001) respectively.

It was evident during the afternoon and from later feedback that the students engaged well

with the process, and enjoyed the activities – and the food of course.

My second intervention was to set up a session where each student gave an individual

presentation to their own group. The four areas of responsibility that I selected and detailed

in the initial project requirements were project management, website interaction, testing

63

plan, and website management (i.e. maintenance, training, security, hosting, web analytics

etc.). Each student was asked to give details of the current progress of one of these topics.

Preparations for the individual presentation, coming shortly after the Metaplan session,

brought about some interesting discussion in terms of task renegotiation. A member of one

group, who had been absent from the Metaplan, questioned the way I had divided the roles,

and wanted a free choice of topic, perhaps seeing the presentation as a way to highlight her

own considerable contribution to the work. A member of another group had taken on

project management but also saw himself taking a lead in the testing process. He could be

seen to consciously rein back as another group member staked out his claim to the testing

role, resulting in an amicable division of labour.

Although there was no assessment credit allocated to these performances, every student

engaged well and worked hard to demonstrate to their team mates how they had fulfilled

their role. Some genuine knowledge transfer took place, although the quality of the

performances varied considerably. One effect of the preparatory work done was to boost

the production of the major item of coursework, a written report detailing the development

of the project.

End of the project

Before the final presentation to the client, one of the groups indicated that they wished to

have differentiated grades. The agreement for this to take place had been made and

minuted during an early meeting of the group, so it would appear that the possibility of an

uneven contribution had been recognised by then. The other groups had no issues, even

though differences in skill and confidence levels were evident. The final presentations went

ahead, and were received with enthusiasm by the client. All groups were awarded good

grades for the main item of assessment, and no student failed the module. In addition,

students remained enthusiastic throughout, as evidenced by module evaluation statistics.

Reflection

Revisiting the issues raised by groupworking, after students have been able to experience

them first-hand, resulted in a much more thoughtful response than when discussed early in

the project. Crucially, awareness of group dynamics had increased and was seen in less

simplistic terms than at the start of the project. Introducing an additional task at a lull in the

64

progress of the project was instrumental in bringing the groups back together, and helped

them to re-focus both on the work, and on their individual roles.

Both interventions, I felt, were supportive of the students and contributed to the smooth

functioning of the groups. Opening up the issue of workload to discussion seemed to have

had a positive effect on interactions. But had I succeeded in counteracting the effect of

status on the performance of the students?

On completion of the project, I invited all my students to meet me on a one-to-one basis, to

get their feedback on the project and the additional measures I had introduced. About half

the students responded to my invitation, and all were enthusiastic about the interventions

that took place, particularly the Metaplan session. They were also positive about the process

of the group-working, while being open about the tensions that arose from time to time.

Students with a range of abilities expressed these views.

Of course the students who chose to speak to me were self-selected, and it is to be assumed

that at least some of those who didn’t were less happy with the process. The fact that one of

the groups chose to differentiate their grades, based on varying degrees of effort, rather than

ability, implies that free-riding did occur, possibly to a lesser degree than would otherwise

have been the case. The two students I perceived to have contributed least, and to have had

the most difficulty in the tasks allocated, were among those who did not respond to my

invitation (which was repeated) to meet up.

Conclusions

The measures taken had the effect of alleviating, somewhat, the effects noted, supporting

positive help-giving and knowledge transfer within the group, and allowing members to

contribute more fully to the group task. Possibly the greatest benefit has been to the

students who possessed non-technical skills. The importance of their role within the group

has been reinforced, and their confidence to assert their opinions strengthened. Status has

been shared more equally, and performance potential enhanced.

However I have to conclude that, although worthwhile, my actions did not entirely prevent

any of the common problems experienced by groups, nor did it enable the least skilled

students to shine in their allocated roles. Within any group of individuals there will be those

65

with more confidence and skills than others, and the role of an academic tutor can only be to

make the process of group-working as painless as possible, and to enhance the positive

outcomes by putting in place sound structures.

I have to accept that I have not overcome the involuntary free-rider effect entirely, and

conclude that if we wish to avoid the drawbacks and inconsistencies of the process entirely

then we would need to abandon groupwork as a form of assessment. While the ability to

work as part of a team continues to be valued, and is arguably more relevant than ever in a

world where extensive communication and cooperation are enabled by technology, this issue

will continue to occupy educators.

It has been my experience that where students can accept the appropriateness of group

working, they are more likely to accept the sometimes painful dynamics inherent in the

process, and will persevere to preserve group cohesion. The following questions are

suggested as a basis for reaching this consensus:

• Is group working the right assessment tool for this task?

• Is this task the most appropriate vehicle for group-work?

As a result of this exercise, there are some guidelines which I feel I have learned for the

management of the module.

Firstly, that in a long-running group work exercise, there is value in periodic re-focussing on

the task, and that tutor input can be helpful in supporting this. It can help to break the cycle

of non-engagement by some, and dominance by others.

Secondly that students appreciate an acknowledgement that group-work carries intrinsic

dangers, and are willing to explore these issues, but both the approach and timing of this

exploration is critical. Including it as a topic in the early seminar programme is not as useful

as providing a forum for reflection and problem solving some way into the project, when

students have started to be affected by the difficulties of working with others.

Finally, that a careful judgement needs to be made, in relation to the benefits to be gained

and the hazards to be encountered, for each piece of group-work contemplated, and that the

task ought to be justifiable in terms of value added to the individual.

66

References

Albanese, R. and van Fleet, D.(1985) Rational Behaviour in Groups: The Free-Riding

Tendency, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Apr., 1985), pp. 244-255

Belbin R.M. (2001) Belbin Team-Role Summary Sheet [online]. Belbin.com. Available from

http://www.belbin.com/content/page/49/Belbin_Team_Role_Descriptions.pdf

[Accessed on 8th February 2008]

Cottrell N (1972) Social facilitation, in McClintock C. (ed) Experimental Social Psychology.

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Greenan, K., Humphreys, P., McIlveen, H., (1997)Developing Work-based Transferable Skills

for Mature Students, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1997 informaworld.com

Gupta, L.M. (2004) Enhancing student performance through cooperative learning in physical

sciences. University of Queensland, Australia. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher

Education, Vol.29, (1).

Hand, L. (2001) Freeloading in Group Work. Paper: Department of Accounting, Nottingham

Business School, The Nottingham Trent University. Learning and Teaching Journal, Vol. 5.

Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (2006) The Learning Style Questionnaire: 80 item version,

Maidenhead, Peter Honey Publications

Ingleton (1995) Gender and learning: Does emotion make a difference? Higher Education,

1995, Vol 30, No.3, Pages 323-335

Knight, J (2004) Comparison of Student Perception and Performance in Individual and Group

Assessments in Practical Classes. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 28, (1), pp.

63-81, March 2004.

Maguire, S. Edmondson, S. (2001) Student Evaluation and Assessment of Group Projects.

Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 25, (2), pp. 209-217.

67

Mills, P. (2003) Group Project Work with Undergraduate Veterinary Science Students.

School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Assessment and

Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 28, (5)

Latané B. Williams, K. and Harkins, S. (1979) Many hands make light work: the causes and

consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-32

Schnelle, T. (2000) Metaplan [online] Available from

http://www.12manage.com/methods_schnelle_metaplan.html

Webb, N. (1992): Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small

groups. In Interaction in cooperative groups The theoretical anatomy of group learning. 102-

119.

Whyte, W.F. (1943) Street Corner Society 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

68

Marginalised students in group work assessment: the effective support

of such individuals and associated ethical issues

Antony Mellor and Jane Entwistle

Introduction

We have been lecturing in HE institutions, principally in soil science and research methods,

for well over ten years and have experience of using group work across all levels of our

degree programmes and in a number of contexts, including practical field- and laboratory-

based activities, data processing and analysis, literature-based research projects, oral and

poster presentations, and written reports. Indeed, group work is well embedded in the

learning, teaching and assessment culture of our subject discipline of Geography (Chalkley

and Harwood 2006, Knight 2004, Livingstone and Lynch 2002, Maguire and Edmondson

2001).

Over the years we have become increasingly concerned about the reluctance of students to

participate in groups that are not self selected ‘friendship’ groups. Comments from students

on group-work like “None of us had met or spoken before. It was like been trapped in a

broken lift with complete strangers” have encouraged a culture of group-working in

‘friendship groups’ to become the norm. We commonly use sign up sheets where students

self-select with whom they want to work, thus reinforcing this trend. As a consequence, we

have become increasingly concerned that this reinforces the marginalisation of some

individuals, and may even promote disengagement.

In this study, we adopted the action research methodology outlined in the introductory

chapter to this volume. Drawing on our previous experiences of student marginalisation in

group work assessment, outlined above, we implemented a series of interventions as part of

the module teaching, learning and assessment strategy, with a view to offering improved

support for such individuals. We then decided to evaluate these interventions, from both

student and staff perspectives. This evaluation led us to re-evaluate our views regarding

what constitutes a marginalised student, and indeed, how this status may change over time,

thus leading into a second phase or iteration of the action research process, which is

currently work in progress.

69

Background and context

The importance of group work for social and academic integration, student retention and

engagement, and graduate employability is well established (Bourner et al. 2001, Hiley and

Carter 2003). A number of key elements to reducing student disengagement are identified,

many of which can be promoted through group work activity:

Allocating time and effort to student activities (e.g. timetabling group work sessions)

(Kuh 2003).

Promoting a strong university based academic and social network (e.g. teaching

group work skills to encourage acceptance and understanding of diversity) (Wilcox et

al. 2005).

Encouraging students to see the University as part of the rest of rest of their life, not

an isolated activity (e.g. including an element of individual critical reflection of the

group work activity, thereby broadening the group work experience by drawing on

wider ‘life’ experiences) (Zepke and Leach 2007).

Enabling students to feel like a valued member of the University (e.g. allowing

students to play to strengths as part of a coherent team) (Inkelas et al. 2007).

This study is concerned with a 20 credit, year-long module, Soil Degradation and

Rehabilitation (GE0156), taken annually by around 30 third (final) year students on our BSc

(Hons) Geography degree programme. Most of these students are so called ‘traditional’

undergraduates, aged around 21 years and entering the programme directly from a UK A-

level or equivalent background. For a number of years we have used group work assessment

as part of a literature-based research project to examine a range of soil conservation

strategies. Each group would focus on one soil conservation strategy and share their learning

with others in the class via group oral presentations, which were assessed. Students would

then submit an individual report as an additional component of assessment. As a whole, this

project constituted 40% of the module assessment, with 30% of this for the group oral

presentation and 70% for the individual written report.

Following annual module reviews and informal discussion with students about group-work

assessment we became concerned about a number of issues adversely affecting the student

learning experience. These included dealing with adverse group dynamics and unequal

contributions by individuals within groups (e.g. Mills 2003, Hand 2001). Of more significant

concern, however, was the small number of individuals in each year group who felt

70

disengaged or isolated, either from the class as a whole, or from their group. These feelings

often arose because of an age difference, in the case of some mature students, but also

because some individuals did not have a close circle of friends within the cohort. This

concern was compounded by the fact that a number of individuals had commitments beyond

University, such as child care issues, which made it difficult for the group to meet outside of

timetabled classes.

In addition we had concerns about the high student workload on this module and the need

to more formally embed group work skills into the module. We decided to change the

written report from an individual to a group submission and to add an individual critical

reflection component, which allowed the students to reflect on the process of group work

rather than just on the end product. Assessment weightings were revised as follows to

accommodate the latter component: overall weighting to remain at 40%, oral presentation

25%, written report 60%, individual critical reflection 15%.

Aims

The above concerns led us to develop a particular interest in ‘marginalised’ students

including those who were new to the year group, coming in either as a direct entrant,

repeating the year or returning from interruption, mature students, or individuals who

appeared to be ‘outsiders’ for less tangible reasons such as those with poor social skills, poor

attendance record or not part of a friendship group. Our aims were, therefore:

To investigate how best to support marginalised students in group work assessment,

using a series of interventions as part of the module teaching, learning and

assessment strategy.

To evaluate the above interventions from both student and staff perspectives using a

range of approaches.

Example profiles of what we perceive to be marginalised students are outlined below (these

are aggregated profiles and are not based upon any one individual):

Sally is a female mature student, in her late 30s, who is rather introverted with ongoing

feelings of low self esteem and a history of depression. Whilst a highly capable student, Sally

feels she doesn’t want to impose herself on the other students who are much younger.

Although Sally has been part of this cohort for the duration of her degree programme she has

71

not become part of a friendship group. She usually sits on her own in lectures, and whilst she

does interact with her peers, she very much chooses to stay on the margins.

Joshua is a male mature student who interrupted his studies and so is new to the year group.

Although extrovert in character, and a good, proactive communicator, he suffered some

personal health issues during the early part of the academic year resulting in long periods of

absence.

Frank is a male student of similar age to the majority in the cohort, but new to the year group

having transferred in to the final year of his degree from another university. Frank was

absent for long periods as a result of having to spend time at home (in Wales) because of

family and financial difficulties.

Sarah is a female student who has been part of the cohort since the start of her programme

and who is similar in age to the majority of other students in the year group. Paid work

commitments meant that Sarah had a poor attendance record for much of the year and was

therefore unable to engage fully with her group.

Ethical dilemmas

For us, the key ethical questions are: first, does marginalisation in group work matter?;

second, should we support such (marginalised) students?; and third, in supporting these

students are we neglecting the majority of individuals in the cohort? We believe that the

answer to the first two questions is an emphatic YES because we are imposing the group

work on students and assessing the end product. Moreover, assessment can be life changing

and if we get it wrong, it could be argued that we are in breach of our moral duty (Elliott

2007). However, in offering additional support to marginalised students, are we in danger of

alienating at least some of the so called ‘silent majority’ who we do not perceive to be

marginalised? Either way, we may be disadvantaging some individuals and so need to

consider how to deal with problematic issues that can affect not only their mark but also the

rest of the group’s mark. If the experience is poor it can also reinforce feelings of

marginalisation, and reduce self esteem and engagement as well as generating other

negative emotions.

72

The interventions

In order to support marginalised students, and to try and prevent others from becoming

marginalised, we decided on a model of equality of support for all groups and individuals

within groups. We felt that it was unfair to target marginalised groups and individuals for

three main reasons: first, those groups and individuals may not wish to be targeted and may

perceive such support as intrusive; second, non-marginalised groups and individuals may feel

disadvantaged, and third, it is often not possible to identify marginalised individuals in

advance of the group work, or marginalisation may happen during the process.

With equality of support in mind, and to encourage individuals to feel valued and thus to

promote engagement, we identified and implemented four key interventions as possible

solutions to our ethical dilemmas. The aim was to promote a supportive environment for the

students by the tutor-led interventions:

To make compulsory timetabled sessions available for the groups to meet; to

promote a sense of group identity and of subject community and to allow groups to

discuss progress with the tutor, thus addressing the practical problem of lack of

opportunity to meet and facilitating group interaction early on in the process.

To allow individuals in the groups to play to their strengths. We encouraged the

students to think about their strengths in terms of the tasks required as part of this

assignment, to identify what their contribution might be and their role within that

group.

To provide formative feedback on drafts of the written report. This enabled us to

encourage and promote the need for a dialogue between group members where a

synthesis of materials was lacking.

To include an individual critical reflection component as part of the assignment. We

aimed to promote reflection on the learning inherent in the activity regardless of the

form of the experience or the summative mark of the end product.

Evaluation

The extent to which our interventions were successful was evaluated using a number of

approaches. These were:

• Production of a teacher diary or log to record student and staff views throughout

the duration of the project.

• Questionnaire with open questions.

73

• Questionnaire with closed questions (Likert scale).

• Individual student critical reflections allowing students to reflect personally on the

processes of group working.

Key outcomes

Findings from the teacher log included a reluctance of students to participate in groups that

were not self selected ‘friendship’ groups and concern about reliance on others for their

marks, especially in the final year. Most found engagement with critical reflection very

challenging, which is perhaps not surprising as it is the first time they will have encountered

this type of writing. In five of the seven groups, students were highly engaged with the

activity and achieved a commendable end product. Of the remaining groups, one started

rather late as a result of poor attendance early in the module but achieved equally good

summative results. The final group, however, presented particular difficulties, comprising

two mature students, one of whom was repeating the year, and a student new to the year

group. Consequently, the students did not know each other and to compound matters

further, they all experienced personal problems, which had adverse effects on

communication and progress. For example, one student experienced a family bereavement,

whilst another had to return home to a remote part of the country as a result of family

problems.

Results from the open questionnaire indicated that dominant emotions were highly

polarised with most being very pleased that groups were self selected. There was general

agreement on what makes for a well functioning group including: effective communication,

strong work ethic, democratic decision making, awareness of everyone’s strengths and

weaknesses, and identification of clear roles and good organisation. Dominant

communication methods were group meetings (post lecture), e-mail and text. The main

positive aspects of group work were found to be: ability to learn from each other (bounce

ideas around), ability to see how others work, sharing of workload (and ‘worry’), learning

valuable teamwork skills, having fun and “it was good to reflect on the group’s performance –

this could help when in a work environment and I will need to understand how group

dynamics work.”

The main negative aspects of group work were found to be: poor communication, clashes of

opinion and over-dominance of some individuals, unequal contribution, dealing with variable

74

standards, clashes with (paid) work commitments and meeting agreed deadlines. “I thought

it (individual critical reflection) wasn’t really beneficial to us and the style of writing so

different to an essay.” Issues arising focused on role designation, individuals unable to work

on their weaknesses, and on the individual critical reflection and word limit, which students

believed should be longer than 500 words.

Key findings from the closed questionnaire were as follows. More than 70% of students

agreed with the following statements:

• I enjoyed the group assessment project overall.

• I prefer to be part of a group that is self-selected.

• It was easy for me to find a group to engage with.

• I chose to be part of my group mainly for personal and social reasons.

• My group was easily able to agree and allocate tasks.

• I felt positive about my personal contribution to the group effort.

• Everyone in the group appeared to be clear about what they were meant to be

doing.

These positive findings cannot be attributed directly to the interventions adopted but simply

reflect the group work experience as a whole.

Less than 20% of students agreed with the following statements:

• I felt that I learned more as a result of being part of a group than I would have done

on my own.

• I chose to be a part of my group mainly for academic reasons.

• I feel uncomfortable working with individuals in a group that I do not know well.

• The tendency for one or more individuals in the group to be over-dominant made

me feel uncomfortable.

• At times I felt that my views were not listened to by other members of the group.

• I took on a dominant role in an attempt to lead my group as I felt that insufficient

progress was being made.

• I had some concerns about unequal workload and contribution across individuals in

the group.

75

The individual critical reflections, with selected student quotes, identified the following

areas for consideration:

• Friendship groups - “None of us had met or spoken before. It was like been trapped

in a broken lift with complete strangers.” “..the fact that we knew each other’s

strengths and weaknesses and are good friends helped a great deal.” “…I did feel a

little excluded in the group as dominant characters took over…made it difficult to

have a say, especially when it was a friendship group because any conflicts could

have created awkwardness in my social life.”

• Disagreement and conflict - “(disputes) resolved by all members listening to each

side of the argument and taking others thoughts into consideration…” In another

case “…disagreements around relevance of content resolved with majority vote.”

• Communication - “Effective communication is undoubtedly a key skill for any

successful group to have….we set out to be as transparent as possible” “I became

aware that I was being very assertive within the group and was dictating rather

than discussing each point.”

• Unequal workload - “It was irritating when somebody missed a meeting at late

notice, disrupting the group dynamic…resolved and I tried to boost team morale and

keep the rest of the group motivated.” “I feel that some members have put a lot

more into the report than others.”

• Organisation and roles - “As a group we defined roles in presenting and report

writing to play to our strengths.” “….shows what can be achieved with efficient

teamwork helped through having regular meetings and schedules to keep to.” “I

was not a dominant member of the group, which meant that part of my degree

mark has been left in the hands of other people.” “In my role as chairperson, I

occasionally felt I was being too domineering…felt I needed to do this so the report

could be finished on time….I felt I was in a difficult position as I was trying to keep

everyone happy as well as produce a high standard report…”

• Learning - “I believe that I should have been more confident and spoken out and it is

this aspect that I need to work on in future group activities.” “… part of the purpose

was to increase our confidence in speaking in front of groups as it will most likely

become an integral part of our lives when we leave University.”

76

Discussion

Of the four interventions noted above, all had a positive role to play (to a great or lesser

degree) in supporting the whole group with their experience of group-work, including those

who we considered to be isolated and marginalised at the outset. The three students who

were identified initially as marginalised students, however, remained so throughout the

project, largely because two in particular were absent for considerable periods of time. In

both cases, the reasons for absence were beyond the student’s control, namely a family

bereavement and personal illness in one case, and personal family difficulties in a distant

part of the UK in the other. So how did the interventions support them positively? The

interventions allowed us to be aware of the issues from their outset, and the impact of

continuing problems on the group dynamics and summative output. However, these

individuals did not respond to e-mail and telephone contact until close to the oral

presentation and project submission deadlines, leaving little time for them to react to the

tutor support on offer. It appears, therefore, that our interventions had limited impact on

these marginalised individuals, although they did at least turn up to deliver a viable group

presentation and were able to submit a satisfactory written report. The extent to which this

was due to our interventions is difficult to establish as even the individual critical reflections

from these students failed to shed further light on this issue.

The fourth intervention, the individual critical reflection, was perhaps the least successful

across the cohort as a whole because the students were relatively inexperienced in this way

of thinking and writing, coming largely from a scientific background. It did however provide a

platform for student grievances and issues to be raised, and facilitated their ability to

develop different approaches to solving more abstract problems. It also provided useful

feedback from the students regarding their personal experiences of the group work

assessment project.

Despite these successes, however, we still had some marginalised students and those with a

less than satisfactory experience of the group work assignment. But, are these the same

marginalised students? Is the issue of marginalisation (and hence the identification of

marginalised individuals) more complex than we first thought? Does our interpretation need

to be revised? The simple answer is ‘yes’ and in this context, another issue worthy of note,

from a group where a number of members shared a house (and hence a ‘friendship-group’),

was a temporary breakdown in friendship of one member who was concerned about a loss of

77

control over the project work and a fear that her marks would be pulled down by the work of

other members. We did not identify this as a problem during the group support and progress

meetings, nor was it brought to our attention at the time by the individual concerned; the

issue was only identified on reading the individual critical reflections after the event. Despite

this concern, however, the group were able to produce a good oral presentation and written

report, and we believe the individual critical reflection went some way to providing

individuals an opportunity to air their issues (and grievances), giving them a focus to

promote reflection/resolution.

An issue that we need to reflect on further is that of group formation. Should marginalised

students form their own (fall-out) groups or should we allocate them, following appropriate

discussion, to existing groups? This year, we took the former approach to form a fall-out

group consisting of three (marginalised) students. However, one member commented in the

individual critical reflection that: “I have found the experience of working with a group to

produce this report difficult and challenging. None of us had met or spoken before. It was

like been trapped in a broken lift with complete strangers.” This very strong viewpoint leads

us to believe that the latter approach might have been preferable. The wider issue of

friendship groups also merits further consideration. We used friendship groups for this

module assessment because the students have been accustomed to this approach since the

start of their academic programme where residential fieldwork activities involve students

sharing accommodation and undertaking project work in groups; inevitably, these are

friendship groups. The existing power-base within friendship groups can be problematic,

however, discouraging students from adopting different roles within the group and inhibiting

individual contributions (Buxton 2003). Research also suggests that working in such self-

selected groups can undermine the academic purpose of an exercise and that more diverse,

tutor-selected groups might be more effective, better reflecting situations that the students

might encounter in their future employment (Thorley and Gregory, 1994). If we were to

adopt such an approach to group formation as part of this final year module, we would need

to change the culture of group formation during the early stages of the academic programme

so that students become more comfortable with working in groups that are not necessarily

self-selected.

78

Conclusions

Our findings cast some doubt over the use of closed question questionnaires as instruments

of evaluation of such complex problems in that emphasis is placed on the majority view. In

relation to marginalised students, we need to capture the minority view, which may be

achieved more effectively through qualitative, open question questionnaires. We perhaps

need to conduct one to one interviews with group members in order to gather more refined

information. Nevertheless, we have identified a number of additional modes of equitable

support including:

• Additional facilitation of group working to include 10 minutes for discussion at the

start of each timetabled session

• Closer monitoring of groups to include a request for copies of minutes from

meetings, perhaps on a fortnightly basis with a record of attendance, task

distribution, outstanding issues and aims for next meeting

• Greater, more proactive staff follow-up to address any problems that may arise

• Consider ways of assessing the contributions of individuals within the groups.

Having completed the first cycle of the action research process, we feel that although some

of our questions have been answered and our interventions have been, at least in part

successful, our ethical dilemmas have changed and broadened out as the issues appear to

have become more complex:

• Are the four interventions, and the additional ones identified above, sufficient to

support the groups and individuals within the groups?

• Is the definition of a ‘marginalised’ student more complex than we first thought and

can this change over time through the course of the project?

• Is the guidance that we are offering too intrusive?

• Should we target additional support more closely towards marginalised students

(i.e. those we initially identify and those that emerge as the group-work

progresses), thus moving from a model of ‘equality’ of support to one of ‘equity’

and in doing so are we in danger of making the non-marginalised students feel

disadvantaged?

• To what extent should we support groups who are behind in the assignment, but

not necessarily marginalised, more than those who are progressing well?

79

To what extent the individuals we identified as marginalised were helped by our

interventions is difficult to assess. Did we help group integration and interaction? Did we

facilitate group cohesion? Certainly the feedback suggests we did at the general level of the

group work process, but what of these specific individuals? As determined from the

individual critical reflections, the experience of Sally, the mature student, was certainly more

negative than the rest of the cohort. As to the impact on our other so-called marginalised

students, this is equally difficult to judge due to the lack of student engagement with this

component. Our conclusions emphasise the need to conduct face-to-face interviews and/or

to conduct non-anonymised feedback at the end of the next cycle of the module.

80

References

Bourner, J., Hughes, M. and Bourner, T. (2001). First year undergraduate experiences of

group project work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26: 19-39.

Buxton, L. (2003). Group assessment at the University of Essex.

www.essex.ac.uk/assessment/allocating_groups.htm

Chalkley, B. and Harwood, J. (2006). Transferable skills and work-based learning in

Geography. The Geography Discipline Network (GDN).

Elliott, J. (2007). Reflecting where the action Is: the selected writings of John Elliott on

pedagogy and action research. Routledge, London.

Hand, L. (2001). Freeloading in group work. Paper: Department of Accounting, Nottingham

Business School, Nottingham Trent University. Learning and Teaching Journal, Vol 5.

Hiley, A. and Carter, M.A. (2003). An induction to teamwork in support of multi-disciplinary

teaching. Continuing Professional Development, No. 6, Critical Encounters: Scholarly

Approaches to Learning and Teaching, Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN), York.

Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E. and Brown Leonard, J. (2007). Living-learning programs

and first generation college students’ academic and social transition to college. Research in

Higher Education 48: 403 – 434.

Knight, J. (2004). Comparison of student perception and performance in individual and group

assessments in practical classes. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 28: 63-81.

Kuh, G. (2003). How are we doing at engaging students? About Campus, 8: 9-16.

Livingstone, D. and Lynch, K. (2002). Group project work and student centred active learning:

two different experiences. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 26: 217-237.

81

Maguire, S. and Edmondson, S. (2001). Student evaluation and assessment of group projects.

Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 25: 209-217.

Mills, P. (2003). Group project work with undergraduate veterinary science students. School

of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Assessment and

Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (5).

Thorley, L. and Gregory, R. (eds) (1994). Using group based learning in higher education.

Kogan Page, London.

Wilcox, P., Winn, S. and Fyvie-Gauld, M. (2005). It was nothing to do with the university, it

was just the people: the role of social support in the first year experience of higher

education. Studies in Higher Education, 30: 707 – 722.

Zepke, N. and Leach, L. (2007). Educational quality, institutional accountability and the

retention discourse. Quality in Higher Education 13 (3), 237 – 248.

82

Facilitating Group work: leading or empowering?

Julie Jones and Andrew Smith

Context

Within the Foundation Degree in Learning & Teaching (FDLT) at the University of

Northampton, students engage in a second year module dedicated to identifying and

understanding issues of special educational needs and inclusion in schools and other

education settings. Assessment of the module is by a group project together with a record of

the individual student’s involvement in the project. This latter is assessed using a project

diary and reflective statement. The students conduct group-based research into an aspect of

inclusion, with an emphasis upon them working collaboratively and developing skills as

reflective practitioners.

As the Programme Leader and the Module Leader for this module, we identified that

students’ experience of assessed group work presents issues in terms of the values and ethics

of good assessment practice. We challenged ourselves to consider how well the assessment

and grading of the group work fairly represented the achievement of individual students. We

considered it important to be confident that the assessment system accurately measured

individual student achievement. Although we regarded the module as successful, we wanted

to research the student experience of the assessment strategies and evaluate whether we

had made unwarranted assumptions regarding an equitable process and whether this varied

from the students’ perceptions. A focus of the research is the understanding that educators

operate through making assumptions although they may not always be aware of having

made those assumptions, (Sherman and Webb, 1995). This is particularly significant where

educators make judgements about fairness of approaches on behalf of students and where

these judgements impact upon grade outcomes.

We identified two main areas for consideration:

(i) The structure of the assessment strategy in empowering students to

demonstrate their individual achievement via assessed group work

(ii) The role of the tutor in facilitating the student experience.

83

Within this action research, we therefore set out to examine whether student groups,

working collaboratively to produce a group assessed assignment, can fairly demonstrate and

be assessed upon their capabilities and contribution to a group effort.

Key literature sources identified aspects of practice related to understanding issues regarding

fairness, justice and reliability of group work (Maguire and Edmondson 2001, Barnfield 2003,

Knight 2004 and Skinner et al 2004). Awareness of the motivational factors implicit in group

work assessment including the effect of rewarding the group product or the individual

contribution were considered in relation to Chapman (2002) and with regard to the inter-

relationships in groups (Arango 2007).

In this study we have tried to contribute towards an understanding of the sensitivity of issues

surrounding the assessment of group work. Although the scale of the study dictates that

conclusions are tentative, some clear evidence was obtained with regard to the diversity of

the group-working experience for students and the need for tutors to challenge their

perception of their students’ understanding of the assessment process.

The Group Work and its Assessment

This module draws from students’ experience and expertise in their individual setting by

requiring them to research and reflect upon any area of practice relating to special

educational needs, inclusion and diversity which is of relevance and interest to them.

Students work both in groups and individually as part of the module. In the opening sessions

students explore their areas of interest and consider the range of topics they might research

so that by session three they have formed research groups of three to four based upon

agreed areas of interest. Tutor input and guidance is considerable in terms of advising,

directing and teaching research skills; particularly the structure of the collaborative research

project, how to manage research methods and the management of being an insider

researcher in their work-place. A key discussion topic is how communication within each

group can be self-managed and how to take collegiate responsibility for ensuring the success

of their project.

For the subsequent time-tabled sessions the module tutor is available for consultation face

to face and via email and telephone. The groups are self-sufficient at this point, meeting out

of session time as frequently as they perceive necessary until project submission.

84

The project is dependent upon a successful group approach; however, within this the

students are expected to demonstrate their individual contribution through two elements:

The diary record of the work a student undertakes for the group project e.g.

contribution in group meetings, collecting information in school, reading relevant

materials, trialling materials in school, discussions with other school staff, meetings

with the tutor and school-based mentor, and preparing the documented project.

In order to maintain the integrity of their work each group member counter-signs

one another’s diaries, as a true record.

The Personal Reflective Statement is an analytical discussion of the mode of

working and the research outcomes. Students structure this into three sections:

o What they have gained in terms of their own professional knowledge and

how this will impact on their own work.

o What their schools/settings might gain from the research.

o Their experience of collaborative group working.

The Reflective Statement is not read by the other members of the group.

Each student is awarded two grades:

A grade for the project, which is the same grade received by all members of the

group.

A personal grade, for the individual diary and reflective statement.

These two grades are combined and, according to the assessment weightings, an overall

personal mark is awarded for this module.

Assessment Item Weighting

1 x group research project 60%

1 x Diary

1x 1000 word Individual. Reflective

Statement

40%

Table 1

The assessment strategy in Table 1 was updated for the academic year 2007/8 with an

increased weighting for the personal elements of work from the original 20% to 40% and the

group grade reduced from 80% to 60%. This was to reflect the importance of the individual’s

85

contribution to the group project and to enable the students to give a detailed analytical

response in their reflective statement.

Although student module evaluations (2006/7) had not indicated significant opposition to

the joint project mark or the integrity of the process, a minority of students held the

following views about the dynamics of their group which they felt influenced the final project

and its associated grade. Specifically, a few students claimed that there were students who

took a ‘back seat’ during the group research and others who were forceful and ‘took over’

the group.

Therefore a minority of students felt that the sharing of the workload or influence within the

group, became unfair. Unfairness is a well documented problem identified by others

including Ransom (1997), Parsons (2002), Hand (2001), Cheng and Warren (2000).

Woodhead (2008) stated that as a consequence of unfairness, ‘Group coursework should be

banned’.

In addition, a comparative review of module grade outcomes indicated that the module

assessment strategy did not sufficiently discriminate between students, as a significant

proportion achieved very high grades. Thus, in an effort to provide a more equitable

assessment process, the decision to increase the weighting of the individual element of the

assessment was taken. It was also decided to further research the extent of the issues

identified by students and whether there were other factors to be addressed in relation to

securing a process of assessment which ensured equity.

Research Questions

Tutor role

Central to the research questions was the nature of the tutor role and whether there is a

conflict between the tutor view and the student view of the role. The 2006-07 module

review caused us to reflect on whether the tutor’s support of students was a factor in the

high grades awarded. This led to the further question of whether a high level of tutor

support could cause lack of engagement in some students by allowing them to be led rather

than, as was intended, empowering them to develop their own projects.

86

Tutor input when setting up the projects is very high, with continuing extensive tutor support

available through time-tabled sessions and by e-mail contact. This led to the questions:

How much of the group work project is influenced by the tutor?

Do students consider they have extensive guidance? How far does this contribute

to student groups maintaining their cohesion and direction?

Assessment strategy

Following the decision to adjust the assessment weightings for 2007-08 we wanted to

explore the student perception of this and whether students had an opinion about whether

the new assessment weightings still discriminate against some students as the majority of

marks are awarded via a group grade.

During the research it was also expected that further information would be obtained

concerning:

What influenced students’ perception of a successful experience.

What encouraged effective collegiate management of group dynamics and

communication between group members.

Methodology

The research was in two stages:

Stage one focussed upon the experience of the 2006/07 student cohort who were able to

reflect upon their impression of the process.

Stage two investigated the experience of the 2007/08 cohort and their on-going perceptions

of the process.

The initial research aims sought to explore:

• Whether students had an awareness of the detail of the assessment weightings in

the assessment strategy

• If so, what the level of their understanding of this was and to what extent they

perceived it to be fair and to be a reliable reflection of their achievement as a group

and as an individual

87

• The effect of the level and nature of tutor facilitation on group dynamics in intra-

group communication, task-sharing, empowerment and ownership.

Key to this research is that interpretations of events within the module made by the module

tutor and course leader may be based on different understandings from those of the

students. Therefore the research sought to access the student voice from a range of sources:

• Analysis of reflective statements from the 2006-07 cohort

• Semi-structured interviews with students from the 2006/07 cohort asking them to

reflect retrospectively on their experiences

• Analysis of 2007/08 students’ reflective statements

• Questionnaire on collaborative working and the tutor role to 2007/08 students

• Three focus group interviews with a tutor selected group 2007/08.

Discussion of findings

Reflective statements 2006/07 cohort (n=20)

The analysis provided findings that indicated:

A mainly positive experience of collaborative working and an enthusiasm for group

working

An awareness of the need to be supportive of anyone experiencing difficult

personal circumstances during the project (n = 4)

A minority of students who commented, there were some who took a ‘back seat’

during the group research period and some students who, through forceful

personalities, ‘took over’ the control and direction of the group (n = 2)

Groups became focussed and worked together in order to meet deadlines

A varied means of communication was used by students to ensure the success of

the group

Where a group identified that at times not everyone contributed fairly, the group

dealt with this satisfactorily and did not apportion blame

Groups shared the workload and were committed to doing their individual best

One group found gaining initial focus difficult but resolved this via additional

discussion within the group and seeking some comment from the tutor.

88

These responses suggest the students have a professional maturity in their approach to

group work and a degree of confidence and experience which enables them to manage the

group dynamics and overcome difficulties in the interest of achieving a successful group

project. However, it also indicates that the students are involved in problem-solving

throughout the process and some found the issue of individual personalities and unequal

contributions difficult to manage.

Group interviews with 2006/07 cohort (n=10 individual group representatives)

(a) Significance and fairness of the assessment weighting

Comments from students tended to demonstrate their acceptance of the requirements of

the module and the approach to assessment:

• “Grades represent different inputs and skills.”

• “Group grade reflects our effort and measures our ability to work as a group.”

• “Group grade reflects the amount of work put in and so 60% is appropriate. As the

individual assignment doesn’t do this it should be a smaller weighting.”

• “The assignments are separate from one another and we just put in our best effort for

each.”

The comments indicate that students tend to measure the weighting via the amount of work

they put in whilst being aware that the two assignments enable them to demonstrate

different learning outcomes. Some students acknowledge that the ability to work in a group

is a key skill in the module learning outcomes. However, most had not considered the

assessment weighting and approached the assessment items by being unquestioning and by

putting in their best effort for both items. Initially most students did not attach significance

to the weighting of the assignments and, once prompted to reflect, they tended to assume

fairness within the assessment strategy. This raises issues for the FDLT Course Team in

maintaining an ethically sound stance in ensuring students understand the significance of

assessment weightings.

(b) Sense of achieving a fair grade for the group project

Comments from students tended to demonstrate their commitment to producing a high

quality group project. There was a strong sense that the students would endeavour to

ensure fairness by managing the equitable sharing of tasks within their own groups. It was

also evident that the students considered they were drawing upon their professional work-

89

based practice in their awareness of the importance of successful teamwork. This is

demonstrated in the following comments:

• “May not be fair if group didn’t gel and not all effort was equal, but groups needed

to co-operate and compliment each other’s strengths.”

• “We all wanted a good grade and so we supported each other for the sake of the

project.”

• “It worked because our group had strong team ethics.” “Fairness came from the

project being about teamwork and that’s part of our professional practice.”

• “We signed each others’ diaries so we knew the marking of the individual effort

would be fair.”

Limitations to this however, were noted where the students identified:

• “In a very small group it wasn’t possible to share the workload evenly if one student

was particularly weak.”

• “Students new to the cohort felt difficulty in fitting into a group.”

This may be an indicator of where tutor influence in establishing groups is vital at the outset

of the project and can be key in supporting students’ avoidance of potential issues in relation

to fairness.

Influence of the tutor

There was no evidence that students felt the tutor was dominating their decision-making or

hindering their exploration of ideas. The students valued the tutor as a point of contact;

someone who was able to oversee the progress of the project and provide support if needed.

Comments included:

• “Help at the start and keeping us on track.”

• “Gave the input that was needed but didn’t intervene in our ideas.”

• “Let us develop our interests and then suggested ways forward when we asked

questions.”

• “We didn’t have too much help – it was just right and was a stepping stone or

scaffolding approach.”

• “Didn’t give answers but reminded us of criteria and aims.”

90

Aspects of the project which supported or inhibited a sense of the assessment being a

valuable experience

The students did not make any comment which indicated the experience was made less

valuable as a consequence of the assessment including a group grading.

In summary, the points were:

• Learning to trust and share with each other.

• Learning from the talents and strengths of others.

• Producing a useful document respected by colleagues.

• Pushing yourself to meet the expectations of the group.

When prompted, students were able to make suggestions to further improve the assessment

process:

• Use an evaluation sheet of the group process for the group to comment on the

individual contributions of others.

• Acknowledge both parts of the assessment strategy equally; although students

went on to state that this would not reflect time spent on the project.

Initial questionnaire responses 2007/08 focus group

This short questionnaire was presented to individual members of the focus group at the end

of the group ‘forming’ stage of the module. It was designed to discover their initial

impressions of how their engagement with their research will increase their professional

knowledge, their working preferences, the level of support from the tutor so far and any

emerging difficulties.

The analysis provided findings that indicated:

• All the students felt that their engagement with their chosen area of research

would have a significant impact on their own professional role in their

schools/settings.

• Some students were unsure about group working (n = 3). They work in groups in

their professional role in schools but had worries about engaging in research with

‘research partners’. This was solely based on their own fear of ‘exposure’ as being,

“not as clever as the others in my group” (student ‘A’) or of having to face potential

conflict, “It gives me the chance to share ideas but I often prefer to work on my own

particularly when ideas conflict and it’s hard to reach agreement.” (Student ‘C’).

91

Other students (n = 3) welcomed the opportunity to work in a group, “I have

enjoyed it so far. It is nice to be able to bounce ideas off the others, clarify them and

generally debate. It also makes me get on with the work as I feel that I may let the

others down if I don’t.” (Student ‘B’) The need to support the others in the group

and to play a full part in the project was a particularly strong motivating factor for

all students.

• All of the students had the right amount of support from the tutor; no student

stated that the tutor gave too much support or ‘over-directed’ the group.

‘Exit’ questionnaire responses 2007/08 students (n=32 students from 2x cohorts)

This was a brief questionnaire presented to two cohort groups and was completed, in class,

on the day that the final group projects were submitted for assessment. It was designed to

discover the individual student’s belief about who was responsible overall for managing the

group, on their experience of receiving tutor support and their opinion on the fairness of the

60/40 assessment weighting.

The analysis provided findings that indicated:

The majority of students (n= 27) believed the group as a whole was totally

responsible for managing the group in terms of establishing tasks,

creating/maintaining the communication framework, directing and executing the

school-based research, utilising key texts/sources and writing up/compiling the

project in a ‘corporate’ style. A few students (n = 4) stated that it was a joint

responsibility shared between the group and the tutor – with the tutor taking

responsibility for dealing with any disagreements/difficulties arising within the

group dynamics or with any difficulties generated through the school-based

research.

The majority of the students (n = 30) believed the role of the tutor in the module

was to help them interpret the assignment brief and direct them during the initial

‘set up’ phase of choosing the area of research and their groups; after this, to

support them with issues/queries relating to study/research skills, their reading and

with any specific school-based issues arising out of their insider research. Two

students were unsure of the tutor’s role.

The majority of students (n= 22) stated that they used the available tutor support

only moderately after the initial set up phase. A significant number (n = 8)

92

completed the project with only using tutor support sparingly while a small number

(n= 2) did not seek any tutor support.

In accessing tutor support the most frequently used method was through face-to-

face communication in the given ‘taught’ sessions (n = 28). Four students did not

take up this option and did not attend the taught sessions after the initial set up

phase of the project. A small number of students accessed the tutor through e-mail

(n = 8). No students used the telephone and no students accessed tutorial support

outside of the taught session times.

The tutor was perceived to be most influential during the planning stage of the

project with their influence being less in establishing group roles and concluding

and collating the research (see Table 2).

The influence of the tutor during the project (by phase)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Interpreting

requirements

Establishing group

roles

Deciding the

research plan

Supporting the

research

Concluding and

collating the

research

Phase of the project

Nu

mb

er o

f stu

den

ts

Very

Quite

A Little

Not at All

The majority of the students (n=29) said that the assessment weighting was

‘appropriate’. Three students disagreed:

“It seems slightly wrong that one person’s degree marks rely on the input of

others. Although it was an interesting way to work, there are problems.”

Table 2

93

“This may be difficult if some people do not have the same impact or an input

to the final piece of work. The diaries do not necessarily reflect this.”

“This is hard to comment on as the 60% means that all group members benefit

from the final grade on the project. In our case one member contributed very

little, although this was because she had dyslexia and found the work hard; we

helped her and she did do some useful stuff for the project but not on the same

level as the rest of us – particularly all the research and the analysis. 40% for

the individual element is fair enough as this gives individuals the opportunity to

prove their worth. Perhaps a 50/50 split is the best.”

Analysis of 2007-08 students’ reflective statements (n=10 diaries as a representative

sample across all four cohort groups)

There was a clear similarity between the statements from the 2006-07 group and the 2007-

08 group. Without exception, all of the 2007/8 students stated how their engagement with

the school-based research combined with extensive reading had made an effective impact on

their professional knowledge and practice. Professional maturity was evident in the

reflective statements along with evidence of the supportive nature of the groups and

individual members. Comments relating to the students’ experience of group working

illustrated how the students used skills of working with others in a pressured environment:

“I struggled to adjust to the ‘limited autonomy’ in a group project and had to

ensure that I listened to and valued everybody’s contribution. I felt that I

tended to naturally take the lead and had to be aware of this and not be

‘controlling’.”

Student ‘J’

“I don’t mind working in a team but knowing that my input affected every one’s

grade put pressure on me and I realise that this affected how the rest of the

group distributed the workload. The others helped me a lot with the use of

correct language, writing skills and also tuning my concentration, but I do feel

that this took away my own personal skills as an ‘academic student’ at times.”

Student ‘L’

94

“When working in group situations I am usually the most assertive or dominant

character, often the one elected to lead or represent the others if required; in

this group that was not the case and I found that to work successfully I had to

compromise and sometimes take a ‘back seat’. I found it quite frustrating at

the beginning if I didn’t get my own way; I went home a few times feeling

quietly anxious. Over the course of the project I feel that I have become more

tolerant and tactful towards others.”

Student ‘A’

“In any group work all participants need to have the confidence and skills to be

willing and able to participate. One member of the group made no

contribution to the literature side of the project – although this was difficult I

decided to encourage her in the areas she felt able to contribute with. This

experience has made me accept that group work can present you with

unexpected challenges but for the benefit of the project it was advantageous to

proceed positively with the task in hand and to discuss difficulties openly.”

Student ‘W’

Exit interview with 2007-08 focus group

This was in the form of a group interview and had its focus on considering the group’s

perception of ‘fairness’ and the working relationship between the focus group and the tutor

throughout the life of the project.

The analysis provided findings which indicated:

• That fairness and equitability was established through individuals and the group as

a whole working strictly according to the guidelines and protocols set by the tutor

in the initial planning stages of the project. Minutes were kept at group meetings

with action points for individuals. The group established a ‘wiki’ discussion board

so that information could be shared electronically. An e-mail and telephone

communication network was created.

• Within the group, discussion was initially focused on each individual member’s

strengths in terms of existing knowledge & skills in small scale/school-based

research and the area of study. Tasks/activities were agreed and distributed

according to level of expertise and emerging interest.

95

• All group members stated they understood the nature of the assessment

weightings and the need to work collectively in order to achieve a high grade by

producing a high quality research project. This was a major motivating factor

although the majority of the group viewed the assignments as being totally

separate pieces of work with the weightings becoming irrelevant.

• Group members frequently read through each other’s contributions and suggested

improvements, links, directions to supportive literature/sources and

encouragement. This was a key motivating factor and led to a collegiate ethos.

• There developed, over time, a strong team and work ethic where group members

were not afraid to admit mistakes/show weakness or share good work. This

contributed to a learning community where any disagreement over approaches was

amicably and swiftly resolved.

• All group members understood that their individual contribution to the project

would be registered through the research diary which would then be read and

agreed by all the other group members prior to submission for assessment. This

further motivated individual group members to not let the group down and

provided a transparent method of showing fair contribution.

• The tutor was helpful throughout the project; particularly in the early phase where

key information on the nature and rationale behind the project, discussion on areas

of research focus, direction on how to manage the school-based research, protocols

on school-based work and warnings about potential pitfalls in group working and

school-based research was presented.

• The tutor directed the group if they asked specific questions and helped them to

limit the scope of the research but generally let the group develop their own area

of interest, research questions and direction of the research. The tutor did suggest

‘ways forward’ when asked. “We didn’t have too much help – it was a stepping-

stone or scaffolding approach where he bought the focus back for us if we’d gone

too wide or off the mark.”

• This was the first time the students had been given this level of autonomy in an

assessment.

• The students felt that they were not ‘led’ by the tutor, but were advised on how to

achieve an effective project.

96

“There was no loss of ownership, we were just helped to know how to achieve a

particular level.”

“The tutor encouraged us to achieve more as he had high expectations but we

were not spoon-fed.”

“I can’t think of an incident when we were provided with resources – we were

given direction/help but it was our responsibility to find resources.”

“We would clarify things with him and then go away and work on it.”

Conclusion

Curtis & Curtis (1995) stated that it is accepted practice in many work places and

organisations to place people in teams and to give people something to relate to and to work

for, other than their own task. Fiedler and Garcia (1987) define a ‘group’ as a set of

individuals who are interdependent and who interact to achieve a particular purpose. They

share a common fate so that an event that affects one also affects other group members (i.e.

they may jointly share rewards or suffer punishment). In short, these two views apply to the

students who undertake the group research project. From the student responses to the

various questionnaires, interviews and from their individual reflective statements it can be

said that:

Overall, most students had a positive experience of group working.

The success of the project is down to the group and that the group is entirely

responsible for the grade received. However, there is still a proportion of students

who have concerns relating to the concept of having a shared ‘group mark’ when

there is a weaker student in their group. In this case, however, the students within

the group still accepted shared responsibility to manage this situation, with tutor

support and guidance if required.

There is a strong awareness amongst the students of being supportive to other

group members.

Generally the students felt a need to ‘not let their groups down’ – this was a strong

motivating factor throughout.

Time management and maintaining close communication remained a difficulty for a

number of groups particularly with regard to distance and availability due to other

97

work pressures. However, those groups who managed a tight process of structured

meetings with a fair distribution of tasks/activities and a varied means of

communication, created a collegiate work ethos which proved to be exceptionally

supportive and effective in terms of managing the school-based research and

project completion. This was particularly evidenced by the focus group (2007/8

cohort) who established an inclusive working environment and positive group self-

esteem by following a tightly structured model of operation underpinned by a

strong communications system.

The students’ engagement with their research focus/area of study and their wider

reading made a positive impact on their own professional knowledge and practice

and in their development as ‘teacher-researchers’.

The students recognise how their group research work will have a positive impact

on their schools’ policy and/or provision.

In terms of the influence of the tutor, evidence shows that:

The tutor was not dominating the students’ decision-making or overly influencing

their exploration of ideas.

The tutor’s role is seen as being a facilitator and a guide/supporter, particularly in

terms of subject knowledge and in the management of school-based research.

The tutor did emphasise the assessment strategy and weightings but a proportion

of the students did not fully understand the significance of the weightings in

relation to the group and individual gradings.

These key points generate some important areas for discussion by the Course Team

responsible for the Foundation Degree in Learning & Teaching (FDLT). The current

assessment strategy (60/40 weightings) appears not to create difficulties with the majority of

the students who, from the 2007/8 questionnaire responses, seem to think this is

appropriate for the nature and level of the work required. Within the programme of study, it

is identified that further work is required on raising student awareness of the weightings

system and how this influences their grades.

In terms of the ethics of having a potentially tutor-dominated group research module, this

has not emerged. The influence of the tutor is a significant one in setting up the research

projects and providing on-going support but there has been no indication, from the students,

98

of the tutor being overly prescriptive. The students felt motivated and challenged not

disempowered.

This is a key finding as it contrasts with the initial course team view. It challenges those

responsible for assessment strategies to ensure they do not make assumptions about what is

in the students’ best interest, but consider the issues and actively seek student opinion.

Perhaps the most important factor to consider in this case is the actual nature of the

students themselves; they are mature students who are educational professionals with at

least three year’s experience working in schools or other educational settings. They are used

to working collaboratively and cooperatively within their professional roles and it is this vital

background which creates the solid foundation for this school-based project. Group work is

not new to these students and they naturally undertake it; this research project is within

their experience, although due to its particular demands many students do discover some

pertinent personal strengths and weaknesses. The main foundation for success in this

project is the unique professional expertise and experience of the students; without this

factor and with a more traditional year 2 undergraduate cohort of students, the project

would potentially have ethical flaws in terms of equity.

99

References

Arango, R. (up-dated 2007) Group Projects and Group Grading: Work in Progress

http://www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/resources/acl/b5.html - 08/02/2007

Barnfield, l. R. (2003) Students’ Perceptions of and Satisfaction with Group grades and the

Group Experience in the College Classroom. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education,

Vol.28, (4). Pub: Carfax Publishers - Taylor and Francis Ltd: ISSN 0260-2938 print/ISSN 1469-

297X

Chapman, E. (2002) Effects of Social Cohesiveness and Cooperative Initiatives on Small

Group learning Outcomes. Current Research in Social Psychology, Vol. 7 (17). The University

of Sydney

Cheng, W. and Warren, M. (2000) Making a Difference: using peers to assess individual

students’ contributions to a group project. Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 5 (2)

Curtis, S., Curtis, B. (1995) Behaviour at Work (2nd ed). London. Pitman Publishing

Fiedler, F., Garcia, J. (1987) New Approaches to Effective Leadership. New York. John Wiley

Hand, L. (2001) Freeloading in Group Work. Paper: Department of Accounting, Nottingham

Business School, The Nottingham Trent University. Learning and Teaching Journal, Vol. 5.

Knight, J., (2004) Comparison of Student Perception and Performance in Individual and Group

Assessments in Practical Classes. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 28, (1), pp.

63-81, March 2004. Pub: Carfax Publishers - Taylor and Francis Ltd: ISSN 0309-8265

print/ISSN 1466-1845.

Maguire, S., Edmondson, S., (2001) Student Evaluation and Assessment of Group Projects.

Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 25, (2), pp. 209-217. Pub: Carfax Publishers -

Taylor and Francis Ltd: ISSN 0309-8265 print/ISSN 1466-1845

100

Parsons, D. (2002). Justice in the Classroom: Peer Assessment of Contributions in Group

Projects. Department of IT and Electrotechnology, Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, NZ.

dale@tekotago.ac.nz

Ransom, L.S. (1997). Grading Group Projects – a ‘group’ discussion Pub:

http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/group_grading.html 08/02/2007.

Sherman, R and Webb, R (1995) Qualitative research in education: focus and methods.

London: The Falmer Press.

Skinner, V.J.; Winning, T.A.; Braunack-Mayer, A.; Mullins, G.; Peterson, R. (2004) PBL Groups:

What are they doing? A student work in progress. The First Phase of a PhD Study: The

Graduate School, University of Adelaide Dental School (UADS), Medical Education Unit, South

Australia.

Woodhead, C. (2008) danger of group coursework. The Sunday Times. 15 June (Review Pg

9).

101

102

Reflections of a “progressive” teacher in higher education: the

opportunities involved in giving students control

Paul Sedgwick

Introduction

I started my school teaching career in England two years before the advent of the National

Curriculum in 1988. During my initial teacher training I remember little discussion of

“learning intentions” or “learning outcomes” and acronyms intended to help us with

formative assessment such as “WALT” (we are learning to) and “WILF”(what I am looking

for), had not yet been invented (Clarke 2001). In those “child centred days” the idea that the

teacher was looking for a particular outcome from a lesson would have been a hot debating

point, not the accepted orthodoxy. We learnt to plan topic work by use of extensive

diagrams that included any number of curriculum subjects and any number of possible

outcomes - this was pupil led learning where children discovered new ways of understanding

and the teacher facilitated the learning process. Knowledge was social - generated by the

group - as well as factual - imparted by an expert – and there were many discussions about

the joy and fulfilment involved in the learning process.

Years later a fellow student remarked that we were the last of the “progressive” teachers to

be trained. According to Education Secretary Blunkett (1999), we collectively presided over a

decline in standards that necessitated the introduction of standards for Qualified Teacher

Status.

Although I would now admit that I was under-prepared for the classroom and that my

training lacked in essential elements of classroom practice, I am grateful that we were

allowed to have opinions, encouraged to think and to develop our voices as autonomous

professionals.

Once in work, I resisted the march of the “instrumentalisation” of school education by

working in various special educational needs (SEN) jobs. In SEN education, the individual

needs of the child and his or her family were still the most important aspect of the work and

professional autonomy and individuality were seen as important. But despite a long career in

103

school based education I never really felt comfortable and escaped, first to a Local Authority

and then to the Higher Education sector.

Although HE offered freedom of thought and a chance to explore educational ideas in

practice, I entered the sector at a time when higher education was as much driven by

learning outcomes and an instrumental approach as school teaching. The area I worked in,

the professional development of support staff in schools, was, if anything, even more bound

by this approach than the more “traditional” HE sector.

If I was to provide good quality education as opposed to job related training, I needed to find

an approach to teaching that encouraged questioning and discussion. Students had to see

why methods worked and why issues were important. They had to analyse ideas as well as

teaching methods to see what the values implicit in them were. Furthermore, they needed

to link the session content to their own lives in order to make individual sense of it, if their

own value systems were to develop in a way consistent with being autonomous

professionals. As Latham says,

“The philosophy underpinning the program is that in order to study teaching,

one needs to study the patterns of values, institutions, emotions and actions in

one’s own life.” (Latham 1996: 63)

If I was going to push the students beyond an “instrumentalist” approach to one

underpinned by “the patterns of values”, I needed to take some risks with lesson planning. I

had to find some way of exploring what it meant to have a value-based system of education,

whilst working within the constraints of delivering a professional development course. This

had the potential to be doubly difficult as our particular student cohort are often

participating in higher education as a means to achieving greater status and earning

potential.

As I was mulling over these issues, the opportunity arose to take part in the action research

project that is reported here and I began to consider how I might best explore the delivery of

a programme that was led by ideas rather than by learning outcomes.

104

I decided to focus my research on the value of student involvement in the assessment

process, focussing on the assessment of a group-work presentation. In doing so I hoped to

consider the extent to which students benefited from producing the “product”, in this case

the group presentation, or going through the process that led up to the product. I was also

hoping to get students thinking about how they would make an assessment of their

colleagues’ work, and in doing so help them to consider issues of team working and

professional autonomy.

It was a risky approach, potentially exposing possible weaknesses in the assessment system.

Involving the students in the marking process also opened up the potential for argument and

delay since the group work presentation formed part of their module mark and would

ultimately influence their final degree classification.

Delay was a particular risk because the course has significant time pressures associated with

it and the research activities needed to be justified both in terms of the value to the students

as well as the value to the research project.

However, I ploughed ahead confident that in the context of a Learning and Teaching Degree

there was enough justification for the approach and enough potential for the students to

positively benefit from the process.

Context: The course, students and module

The students involved in the research were all on a BA “top-up” degree in “Learning and

Teaching” (BALT), effectively a third year course. The stated aims of the BALT courses are to:

Establish a rigorous understanding of learning and teaching through engaging in

detailed analysis and evaluation of theoretical perspectives in education and

professional practice.

Extend and refine students’ critical reflection on practice.

Consolidate students’ learning in relation to the proposed Higher Level Teaching

Assistant Standards (TDA 2007).

Support students’ in making progress towards the Standards for Qualified Teacher

Status (TDA 2009) in readiness for progress to an employment based route

following the completion of this course.

105

A “top-up” degree is designed to follow on from a Foundation Degree, which is a two year

“work-based” qualification. During a Foundation Degree all students are expected to be in

employment relevant to the subject being studied; in this case employment in schools

(Foundation Degree Forward-n.d.). Although the third year “top-up” is not employment

based all students are in employment in schools and course teaching takes place on one day

per week. Thus, the teaching time available on the course (and so the data collection time) is

very constrained.

The course was run at three locations, one at the University and two off campus. The group

size varied between 20 and 25, with a total of 66 students. Reflecting the norm in the

Education-Support sector of employment, students are predominantly female, with only

about 9% male. The average age of the students is considerably older than for most

university courses, about 35 years, with a range of 23 to 55 years. As a result nearly all

students have considerable life and employment experience. This maturity and experience

enabled a data collection plan to be constructed that might not have been undertaken with a

“typical” student group.

The module, ‘Professional Practice in Education’, aims to develop professional practitioners

who can justify what they do from first principles, understand the context in which they work

and in which policy is formed, understand and be aware of the limits of their competence.

Professional competencies or standards linked to employment situations are deliberately not

dealt with on this module although the Higher Level Teaching Assistant (HLTA) standards and

Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) standards are referred to during the course. This is because

the notion of professionalism being wholly defined by outcomes is, as explained, challenged

during the course, with attempts made to get the students to understand the principles and

philosophy behind teaching and learning rather than just considering the professional

standards required.

Assessment strategy for the module

The Professional Practice module had four items of assessment:

1. A written submission (worth 5% of the module) - in which students explore their

own position at the start of the module.

2. A group presentation (worth 20% of the module) - in which is prepared during the

course but delivered at the end of the academic year (the subject of this study).

106

3. A written assignment (worth 40% of the module) - in which students analyse an

interview they have undertaken with another professional.

4. A written submission, linked to assessment item 1, (worth 35%) - in which students

reflect on how much they have changed since writing assignment 1.

Assessment methods 1, 3 and 4 are fairly standard ways of assessment in many degree

courses and as a result are not contentious or difficult to justify.

The group presentation does, however, require further explanation and justification. In

previous years, there was a course learning outcome, since deleted, that stated:

“…(students should) work as an integral member of a team, contributing

positively to the corporate life of the institution in which they work, as well as

work collaboratively with specialist staff, teaching assistants and other adults

to enhance pupils’ learning.”

In the past, assessment of this outcome was done indirectly through students’ written

reflection on work situations, but this was felt to be rather unsatisfactory. However, the

course team felt that teaching, and assessing, group-working skills was a highly appropriate

objective of the module. In the context of a Learning and Teaching degree, learning to work

with others as part of a team and assessing one’s own team work performance are critical

professional skills, especially for those students who want to go on to become teachers.

Therefore a shorter learning outcome,

“Work as an integral member of a team, contributing positively to group

outcomes”

was reinstated and an assessed group task, a presentation, was introduced. The

presentation, the product of the students’ group-work, could be directly assessed but the

process the group went through could not be, or not directly.

By including a group work task in the assessment scheme, it was intended that the

presentation would be more than a simulation of a work situation for assessment purposes.

It was hoped that non-participating students would benefit from listening to the

107

presentations (the product of the group-task) in the same way that they benefited from

lectures or seminars by tutors. The brief for the presentations was written so that groups

were aware that their efforts were going to be compared to those of staff members with

similar briefs.

In addition, each group of students was asked to express a preference about the marking

criteria to be used for marking all the presentations on the course. Agreeing what these

criteria were to be formed a group task in itself. In this case the task was not marked in a

summative way but each group had to agree a statement about how well they had agreed

the criteria. This was to be written collectively and presented as ten bullet points. These

comments were available as data for the research but also formed a type of self-assessment.

Again, each task in the session had to serve more than one purpose.

Issues

Including such group presentation as part of the assessment for the Professional Practice

module immediately raised a number of practical and philosophical issues. These included:

a) Time constraints and other practical difficulties

The students who are studying on the BALT are mostly mature people with family or caring

responsibilities, who are attempting to juggle a working life and family life with studying for a

degree. They do not all live in the same area, and are unlikely to meet up outside of their day

a week at university. As a result, the group work task presented them with real practical

difficulties with replicating the “team situation” required by the task. Allowing timetabled

time for group-work and on-line conferencing only partly alleviated this.

b) Student needs and expectations

The particular nature of the students studying on the BALT also created issues about the way

in which the research was carried out, and indeed whether it was justifiable to take “time

out” of the hectic course timetable to consider issues to do with group-working. Some

students, a minority, have a very utilitarian view of studying for a degree and will only value

those things that give them credits towards that degree. They see a degree only as a

necessary step in their career development. This group needed convincing of the value of

taking time to prepare as a group. The clinching argument for this group is that the

presentation is assessed and so has individual value. Other students, the majority, could see

108

the value of experiencing group-work and also value discussion and reflection as ways of

broadening their understanding.

c) The fairness of assessing a group presentation

It is well recognised in the literature on group-work assessments that there may be potential

for unfairness in assigning group-work grades. A range of problems can occur including;

dysfunctional groups, individuals doing more or less than their share of the work, individuals

getting marks which do not reflect their effort or attainment and individuals not benefiting

from potential learning experiences because of the actions of other students. Some of these

issues did arise during the course of the research process as will be seen below.

d) Peer Assessment

It may be questioned whether it is appropriate for students to have any sort of control over

the final marks of their colleagues. In the example under consideration, students could

influence the marks of other students in two ways;

They could contribute or not to their individual groups and so influence the marks

of other students in their small group and

They could influence (and apply- see below1) the marking criteria used to mark all

the presentations of the course.

Including an element of group work in the assessment process raises a series of sometimes,

thorny issues, but involving students in establishing the assessment criteria and even

awarding marks to their colleagues raises even more! The appropriateness, or otherwise, of

giving students control in this way therefore became one of the key issues to be explored

during the research process.

1 Each group of students was given a list of marking criteria and asked to select the top nine and

“diamond rank” them in order of importance. Having done this as a group activity they also had to agree how well the group had worked together and provide feedback on this. See appendices i and ii

109

The research question

At the start of the research process I had the general aim of looking at how team-work in

paid employment could be assessed through a group-work task within the University

environment. I also felt that the idea that students should have more understanding of, and

control over, assessment was worthy of further consideration. I did not, however, have a

very clear research question or clear idea of what the outcomes might be!

During the planning period, I felt it was perfectly possible to try to simulate a team-work

situation at the University and to make an attempt at assessing the associated group-work.

Simulated group work or role-play is, of course, a familiar strategy used in many higher

education courses, but student involvement in choosing the criteria for assessment was, I

believed, less common.

Exploring the involvement of students in the assessment process therefore took more

prominence during the research process and ultimately formed the basis of my research

questions:

How can group-work on an academic course be constructed so that it has intrinsic

value as a task and also be a useful teaching and learning tool?

How can the involvement of students in establishing marking criteria and in

assessing their colleagues work as a teaching and learning tool?

The research

The research process began with the devising of a structure and teaching plan for the group

work sessions with the students. The teaching plan was almost synonymous with the

research plan. After consideration this was finalised as:

A short, 1 hour, introduction near the start of the year that formed part of a

discussion about research ethics. This session used the research project as a way of

highlighting ethical issues involved with participant and action research: what do

concepts such as “informed consent” and “the right to withdraw at any time” mean

when the subjects are being researched on by the teacher who is simultaneously

teaching them? This was delivered as part of another module in the degree,

‘Research Methods in Education’.

On-line resources consisting of discussion documents about group work, the

rational for the research project and ethical issues.

110

A taught session consisting of input followed by a discussion about group-work and

a formative group-work exercise, (3 hours in all).

Timetabled sessions for students to work together without staff (to prepare their

group presentations).

The facility for groups to interact on-line via a virtual-learning-environment (also to

prepare material for their presentations).

The assessed presentations and the marking of them.

In addition to experiencing the reactions to the sessions above, making notes immediately

after the sessions and viewing and assessing the output the following data collection

methods were included in the research plan:

• Written group feedback about how they went about the formative group task

(choosing and rating marking criteria). This task itself was part of the formative

group-work.

• Individual (voluntary) written feedback about how they found the session and how

they found doing the tasks above, asked for immediately after the session or to be

sent by e-mail (about 30 responses were received).

• Informal focus groups held after the end of the course, one from each venue with 5

or 6 participants in each.

• Informal individual interviews after the end of the course, 5 in all.

Introductory session

As mentioned above, the research process was introduced to the students during a

previously timetabled discussion on research ethics, which was aimed at preparing students

to conduct their own research projects. The initial outline of the project focussed on the

ethics of practitioner research, where research and teaching are carried out simultaneously,

and students were offered the chance to object to being involved in the project either there

and then or by private e-mail/letter.

It was stressed that objections would have no impact on their grading, and that comments

and/or objections were welcomed as a way to illuminate the conflicts between research,

teaching and assessment. Had more than a few students opted out the project would not

have been feasible in the form envisaged.

111

It should be noted at this point that neither students in university nor pupils in school can,

realistically, opt out of lessons and if these lessons are also part of data gathering for

research then the concepts of “informed consent” and “voluntary participation” (BERA 2004)

are potentially compromised. Students were encouraged to consider this issue in relation to

their own dissertation research projects as well as in relation to this research project. Most

of the students were engaged in, or intended to carry out, small-scale practitioner research in

the settings in which they worked, often with the pupils they were teaching or supporting.

Thus, these students had the experience of being both the researcher and the research

participant, something that was used as a teaching opportunity.

Ethical Issues

The ethical justification for this research project was discussed during the introductory

session. This discussion was itself a teaching situation. Students had to produce an ethical

statement about their own research and this project was used as an example of practitioner

research that raised problems. In this case, the thorough discussion allowed students to

become fully informed as well as dispelling anxiety about being the subject of research. It

was suggested that being on both sides of the situation - staff as researchers and students as

subjects of research - might enable students to gain further, as yet unknown, learning

outcomes from the experience. It was also stated that students would not suffer any known

detriment as a result of any stage of the research, although they might consider they were

disadvantaged as a result of participating in unsatisfactory group sessions or through unfair

assessment of the group task.

As the intention was to give a group mark for the presentation where all group members got

the same mark and, also, to involve other students in the marking it was acknowledged that

unfairness might result. This issue was left for students to consider and reflect on. They

could discuss it face to face with each other or with teaching staff, or on-line and voice

objections to staff if they wished. In fact no students did discuss it and, at this stage (early in

the course) students seemed quite happy about being the subjects of research. This

particular group of mature students was very willing to accept things proposed. In hindsight,

insufficient cognisance was taken of the way students perceived themselves as relatively

powerless. Despite open discussion, at this stage of the course, power and control of the

research and of the teaching rested very firmly with the lecturer.

112

Online resources

One of the key issues with group-work is how the groups are composed and who makes the

decisions about grouping. A discussion paper in the form of some questions and responses

was posted on-line and on-line discussion invited but no students took the opportunity to do

so at this stage. Slides from the introductory session on research ethics were also posted

together with an invitation to debate, but again no students did so, either in open forum or

by private e-mail. It can not be inferred that this lack of discussion indicated complete

agreement and consent but the opportunity to question and negotiate participation was

given.

As previously mentioned and despite open discussion of key issues, some students perceived,

and a few later admitted, that their need to successfully finish the course meant that they did

not feel that any objection would be in their best interests or worth the time:

“I did not see it as worth rocking the boat over a minor issue when there were

more pressing things for me to do. You set the assignments and we do them

to the best of our ability… That’s what we do… we want a degree, you give it

to us.” (student in focus group).

Taught session on group-work

The aims of the group-work session were to teach and practise group-work and to agree the

criteria that would be used for marking the group presentation. The session started with a

recap about ethics which led into a discussion about group-work itself.

At each venue there followed a discussion about assessment and its place in education,

particularly in Higher Education. Discussion was then focused on the assessment of group-

work and the problems this brings. Panitz’s (1996) ideas about “collaborative” and

“cooperative” learning were introduced and it was stated that at least some evidence of

collaborative working would be desirable. The group were encouraged to criticise

constructively the teaching and assessment of the course so far and asked to make links

between their criticisms of HE practice and their own experience as staff in schools. Students

were asked not to mention any person by name but to generalise the points they were

making.

113

The formative group-work task itself took over one hour and consisted of three related tasks

(see appendix i- answer sheets etc):

Task 1 – To collectively decide on the criteria to be used to mark the group presentations by

agreeing a “diamond ranking” of suggested criteria (or write new criteria) and records the

result

Task 2 – To agree a topic or title for the presentation

Task 3 – To agree an explanation, in writing, about how they had achieved the first two.

During the tasks I intervened in the group discussions and was not in any way passive. My

aim was to open up discussion and to get students thinking about why they said what they

did.

Finally, it was requested that each student write 200 words saying how he/she felt the group

exercise had gone, but it was stated that this was voluntary.

Towards the end of the discussion, it was proposed that the marking of the presentations

should be done by the student body itself. It was suggested that they were now fully

conversant with the problems of assessment and understood the criteria and the mark sheet

and so were equipped to do this task. This possibility was discussed at all venues and it was

agreed that marking could be a joint effort between students and staff with everyone

marking individually and anonymously and an either average result being taken or the

students’ marks being used to moderate those given by staff.

Time for the students to work together

This was timetabled but students did not use this time, preferring to make their own

arrangements that fitted schedules better or to depend on e-mail contact. Nevertheless it

was felt important that this time was scheduled into the course for this activity.

The assessed presentations and marking process

The agreed marking criteria from the different groups were used to devise a single set of

marking criteria which could be used at all venues. The ranking the groups gave the criteria

was used to select the top nine.

114

Focus groups and interviews

A focus group at each venue was conducted after the last session of the course and after all

assignments had been handed in. The atmosphere was informal and discussion took place

over lunch. The selection of students was pragmatic, consisting of those who turned up for a

final celebratory lunch. This was far from ideal but was all that could be arranged given the

constraints of time.

The students were asked about their opinions of the group-work exercise and if they felt

group-work was valuable in a degree course. They were asked if they had learnt anything

from it and if so what? They were also asked about the issues of “fairness” and for their

views on the “group grade” being awarded irrespective of input.

The discussion then focussed on how they had felt about the process of marking their fellow

students. Five individual students were also asked these questions in a situation where their

responses could not be overheard by others. No recording or notes were taken because of

the informality of the situations but key points were written down later.

Discussion

This research sought to answer two key questions:

• How can group-work on an academic course be constructed so that it has intrinsic

value as a task and also be a useful teaching and learning tool?

• How can the involvement of students in establishing marking criteria and in

assessing their colleagues work as a teaching and learning tool?

Overall the experience of this case study would suggest that, with a robust process and clear

outcomes, many aspects of team-working within a work environment can be replicated by

group-work in an academic situation. However, it is challenging to get the process right and

to enable meaningful development of key skills to take place, and may well involve taking

risks in the involvement of students in the process of assessment which are only possible

with some student groups.

In this case most students welcomed being involved in both the group-work and the process

of selecting and using marking criteria. Nearly all found the process rewarding or beneficial

in some way.

115

“the session was most useful, we got to know how difficult marking can be and

we got to know each other far more- the session should have been scheduled

for the start of the year.”- (student after the end of the course)

It should be acknowledged at this point that those who did not find it beneficial would

probably have kept quiet!

Using group-work in an academic situation as a way to assess work-related learning requires

the planning of group work tasks that develop key skills including, communication,

negotiation and project management. It is difficult to devise a task which doesn’t feel

contrived and, where there is the potential for learning to take place, students have to see

and experience the learning that happens. This learning has to be seen as being relevant to

the students’ own work situations rather than to just to doing well at the assessment. As one

student said:

“I feel that this *course+ has made me look at things from different angles. I did

not see the need for this before but now I do and am very glad about it. I am

sure I’ll be a better teacher for being able to do this; maybe I am a better

teaching assistant? I might even meet some more standards!”

Just as in work situations students need some control over the group-work tasks and need to

be able to challenge and question what they are being asked to do and why so that they can

be active in their own learning:

“We ask students *at schools-the place of employment] to take an active part in

their learning and peer assessment is part of that, so it is a positive thing that

we experience this first-hand and use the process to inform our own practice.”

In the case of this research, the assessment was preceded by teaching and a formative group-

work session. The formative session was where most learning took place but even this had

an obvious purpose to it (devising the criteria for marking) that was related to the curriculum

and to the assessment of it rather than a purely abstract task such as “build the tallest tower

you can, etc...”. All students therefore took both the preparation tasks and the final

assessment task seriously. It would seem that tasks that are both instructive in their own

116

right and tasks that produce a useful out-come are needed to ensure that students take

group-work seriously.

Any problems with the first group-task were not disastrous for the group mark because there

was time for tutor involvement mediation and learning before the assessed task. Students’

comments would seem to suggest that students on this particular course started with good

skills, but also learnt from the experience;

“Previous experience of working collaboratively enabled our group to gel and

make swift progress.”

“I'm sure there is potential for argument at some point in the planning for the

presentation, but I know the members of the group to be hard working and

keen to succeed. This is key to this type of group work because you only need

one member to fail to do their share and it can wreck the morale of the whole

group................. This did not happen today and the group was well organised

and in agreement with our approach to the task.”

“The session we had on assessment was good - to work in a group and

collectively speak about what we thought was important and cemented our

understanding and gave us a good base from which to work....”

That students were able to make the link between the individual skills they developed during

the exercise and their employment situations was evidenced by several comments for

example this one:

“....group-work is a good idea as group-work and team-work is part of being a

professional. We as students need to understand the importance of

collaboratively working together; as potential teachers this is a must- to benefit

the children.”

Students were well aware of the problems but seemed able to accept any unfairness

inherent in the situation:

117

“In life there will be people who don’t pull their weight and learning to deal

with these people is a learning curve - they lose out.”

The second part of the research question involved looking at the extent to which it was

possible and desirable to involve students in establishing marking criteria and in assessing

their colleagues.

Linking the group-work activities to some form of assessment was needed in order to make

the situation real and meaningful; “If group-work is [to be] seen as a valid learning experience

then it should be assessed.” However as the same student went on to say “...but I am not

really sure how it should be assessed!”

Assessment of the product (in this case the presentation) rather than the group-work process

that led to the product was chosen for purely pragmatic reasons: no one other than the

participants were present to observe the process. A system that allowed group members to

give marks to one another for participation and team-work would have enabled the process

to be assessed, but was rejected because of the potential for unfairness and abuse, and

because of the possible detrimental impact on the learning experience.

However, the involvement of students in establishing marking criteria and assessing their

colleagues did appear to work well:

“I understand my role as an assessor more … I realise how hard assessment can

be…”

This may be because students were involved in the process from the start, with wide ranging

discussion taking place about the role and aims of assessment. Potential problems and

unfairness with the assessment of group work were deliberately highlighted and students

were asked to consider their own solutions.

For most the solution was just to live with any unfairness but in the individual interviews one

student did suggest that she would have felt aggrieved had her degree classification suffered

as a result of a group-mark and suggested that the percentage of a module mark allocated to

group-work be very limited. The open discussions during the course were potentially quite

118

risky, as they “opened-up” questions to do with the very purpose of assessment and the

relative power relationships between staff and students. At times the processes of the

University and validity of degrees were called into question.

Interestingly, when students were given some element of control over the marking process

feedback showed that the majority really appreciated the experience:

“The fact that you value our contribution as moderators was rewarding”

“The session on assessment was very interesting as it gave me an insight into

how you go about choosing assessment criteria. Also by choosing our own

criteria it gives us a clearer idea into exactly what is expected of us...”

However, there is clearly a limit to the extent to which students would feel comfortable with

the involvement of their colleagues in the marking process:

“... there is great value in group-work and a lot can be learned and achieved

from working collaboratively…. Marking each other is questionable but with

the weighting of this [task] being only 20% of the module I feel it will work well

and address the ethical issues and dilemmas.”

“I would be concerned if I felt that the group mark had reduced my chances of

doing well overall. The group mark was my worst mark but it does not seem to

have had an effect....”

One mature student on the course also highlighted whether student involvement in

assessment would work for all student groups:

“I am worried that new young students who possibly do not work as hard as

mature students come out with the same/similar grades to us....”

It is obvious that this group of mature students were willing to accept the “rough with the

smooth” in a way that younger less mature students might not be.

119

As will be apparent from the comments reported above, a prevalent concern was the extent

to which marks for group work contributed to overall marks for individual students.

Individual interviews which took place at the end of the course students indicated a general

feeling that 20% was too high for group tasks and it could be usefully reduced to perhaps

10% or 15%. This should be seen in the context of a question asked in the focus group about

“what percentage is enough to make a task significant to you”; their answers were typified

by the following comments;

“I always take all tasks seriously, but may be 5%.....”

“if I knew I had passed well then maybe I’d not put in as much effort if the

percentage mark was very low”

Conclusion

Overall the action research project proved a significant learning experience for myself as the

researcher and the students who participated in it. It demonstrated that when students are

given control and calculated risks are taken with the format and goals of a teaching session,

the results can be rewarding for staff and students alike.

On a Learning and Teaching degree course, these risks can usefully be taken in group-work

situations that give students a taste of working cooperatively. Group-work creates

opportunities for learning about oneself through interaction with others, and it is this

interaction, rather than any clumsy attempt at creating a realistic work environment, that is

so useful in developing social knowledge linked to meaningful value systems.

But does group work need to be assessed to make it meaningful?

The experience of students during the research project would suggest that group-work does

need to be assessed and marked to make it feel worthwhile. However, learning would

appear to be further enhanced if at least some of the power for assessment is transferred

from the lecturer to the students themselves, thereby allowing students an opportunity to

evaluate their own group work experience.

120

It would seem that taking some risks with the assessment process gives students added

control over their own learning, and encourages them to think about the values and ethics of

what they are doing.

So, whilst it may not be desirable or practical to return to training “progressive” teachers,

maybe group work and the involvement of students in the assessment process offers

opportunities for the discussion of the “why” and “how” of what we do as teaching

professionals, and in so doing enhances our classroom practice.

121

References

BERA (2004) British Educational Research Association (BERA) Ethical Guidelines

http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/pdfs/ETHICA PDF1

Blunkett D., 1999 “Moaners who are cheating your children” - Daily Mail 19th July 1999

Clarke S., (2001), Gillingham Partnership Formative Assessment Project (available from)

http://www.aaia.org.uk/pdf/Gillingham1.pdf ) - (accessed 3/05/09 May)

Foundation Degree Forward (n.d.)

www.fdf.ac.uk/home/information_for_employers/what_are_foundation_degrees/ -

(accessed 15/8/08)

Latham G. (1996) , Collaborative Theory-Building in Pre-service Teacher Education,

Australian Journal Of Teacher Education Vol. 21, No. 2, 1996 (available from)

http://ajte.education.ecu.edu.au/ISSUES/PDF/212/latham.pdf (accessed 9th Jan 2009)

Panitz T (1996) – A Definition of Collaborative vs Cooperative Learning, (available from)

www.friendsofchalkbytes.org (accessed 12/08/08)

TDA 2007- Professional standards for HLTA status (available from)

http://www.tda.gov.uk/upload/resources/pdf/t/tda0426_the%20standards.pdf

TDA 2009- Guidance to accompany the Professional Standards for Qualified Teacher

Status and Requirements for Initial Teacher Training (Available from)

http://www.tda.gov.uk/upload/resources/pdf/q/qts_itt__guidance_tda0497.pdf

122

Appendix (i) – Briefing Material Give to Group

Developing Group-work & Marking of Group Presentation on PDT 3003

In the BALT we have a group presentation which is the outcome of a process and this is

assessed not the process itself. The process is practised today by doing the exercises in this

session.

The group will prepare and give a presentation worth 20% of the module. Marking this is

fraught with difficulty. For example, one might ask:

Should all members of the group get the same mark?

Should the most hard-working members get better marks?

What if one member of the group “sabotages” the task for the other members; dose

everyone fail?

These are the issues we will be looking at in this session.

I’ll be asking you, the members of the course, to get involved with setting the marking

criteria. You will do this in groups of 3 to 6, ideally 4 or 5*. You already know a lot about

assessment from two years of study but you also need to be aware of the practical difficulties

that arise from requirements to make assessments that are not straight forward. Doing this

exercise will help you to reflect on the process of group assessment; I hope that you will

share some of these reflections with me.

We will be attempting to arrive at some marking criteria which can be used to assign marks

to the presentation. It has already been decided that half the marks for the presentation will

go to the individual’s performance and presentation skills (each member of the team has to

do at least some presenting) and half the marks to the team effort. This split, or the notion

of any split, may be challenged but only by good clear and convincing argument.

This exercise (producing criteria for the marking) is a practical example of group work and will

give you a chance to develop your own group-working skills and assess yourself (and your

* The choice and composition of groups can be a problem. See additional document on this. Groups

will be given.

123

group) in a group task. You will have time from the time-table to prepare as a group: this will

be after the exemplar sessions given by D. M. (maths) and J. (music), both due at the start of

term 3 but you can, of course do additional work.

Your brief for the group presentation is on page 5 of the module booklet. As a group you can

choose one of two options:

1. Justify an area of the school curriculum (not maths or music)

2. Take a current issue relevant to education or social policy and explore it

But no two groups may choose the same subject/issue. So, today you will indicate preferred

choices (1st and 2nd choice) of topic only and they will be confirmed after discussion with the

group as a whole

We need to decide on criteria for marking the presentations.

To help us do this below is a list of possible criteria which your group needs to rank as a

diamond (1 on the top row as most important, two on the second, 3 on the third row, 2 on

the fourth row and one on the fifth- use the cards provided). You may add additional criteria

and/or change the ones on the cards. You need to work as a group and will need to discuss

issues and be prepared to compromise in order to come to an agreed solution. You then do

the following:

Write the solution to the diamond ranking exercise on the record card (group)

Fill-in the criteria on your copy of the presentation mark sheet (group)

Write some comments about the process your group went through and/or the

discussion you had in the space provided (group-brief notes, say no more than 100

words)

Write an individual comment about how you felt the exercise went, say 100 or 200

words - (private between you and I)- in which you reflect on your part in the team.

This is to help your own development in meeting the outcome above as well as

providing me with data for possible analysis.

The criteria from all the groups will be collated and a set of criteria will be decided upon

across all groups and the three venues. I’ll have to do this but may ask for additional input if

there is little or no agreement.

124

Marking Criteria To Be Ranked (you may eventually choose to suggest totally different

criteria)

1. Explain the question/ problem/ issue/subject chosen to the audience

2. Background information/rational for presentation

3. Reference to a range of literature (not just government sources)

4. Identification of key ideas in debates

5. Level of discussion- was it HE level 3?

6. Quality and accuracy of information given

7. Evidence of research backing for presentation

8. Accuracy and of information given

9. Range of techniques /styles used

10. Supporting material

11. Balance of session and timing

12. Good use of time in session

13. Quality of slides produced

14. Clear links to professional practice

15. Clarity about who from the team contributed what

16. Evidence of team-work

17. An understanding of differing roles within a team

18. Engaging the audience

19. Interesting tasks given to audience

20. Thought provoking/ challenging to received wisdom

21. Overall impression

22. Entertainment value

23. Others of your choice

125

Appendix ii

Record Sheet To Be Given In.

Group Ranking (Diamond)

Write an agreed comment about the process your group went through in the box below-

notes or bullet points- keep it short, say 100 words, 10 lines.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Now as a group fill in the criteria on the mark sheet provided.

As an individual write a short (one side max.) reflection on how you felt you contributed to

the group, any issues/problems you encountered and how they were solved. Please keep

this private. You may do this anonymously or put your name on it as you feel fit.

Topic Choices These may change- see module booklet for assignment details.

Option chosen:.________________________________________________

First choice of subject/issue Second Choice of subject/issue

Write the number of each

statement (as above) in the

box- or, if you added to the

list, write the new statement

next to the diamond , or give

a separate list.

Venue

Individual Names

1

2

3

4

5

6

126

Conclusions: An analytic survey across the studies: values, ethical issues

and aims

Lorraine Foreman-Peck and Liz McDowell

From the cases studies a number of common themes and issues have emerged. There was

no doubt from any of the lecturers that group work is valuable and necessary. Vinkenoog

and Vernon argued that, in the businesses associated with their courses (biotechnology and

computing) team working and communication skills were more relevant and essential, than

in the past. In the cases of Sedgwick and Jones and Smiths’ research on degrees for teaching

assistants, it was also seen as an essential skill, and Foreman-Peck claimed that, even though

her course was not associated with a specific occupation, the group working skills it

encouraged were essential for active citizenship. Mellor and Entwistle found value for team

working within the course and university ethos. They believed that it promoted student

engagement with their learning, enabled social integration with the additional beneficial

effects of increased student retention and enhanced employability. Working in groups

meant that students in several of the examples could work on realistic tasks giving them

access to experiences and learning opportunities that could not have been provided in other

ways.

All lecturers also argued that students needed to see that group working was an appropriate

way of working for their subject discipline as well as a preparation for their future, post-

university lives. In Vinkenoog and Vernon’s studies the tasks were respectively to design a

new crop, and to build a web site for a specific client. In Foreman-Peck’s case study the task

was a role play presentation of a choice of philosophical issues, such as the rights and wrongs

of home schooling. Jones and Smith’s teaching assistants investigated an aspect of inclusion,

and through that investigation were expected to relate their findings to their work based

practice. Mellor and Entwistles’ tasks were concerned with soil conservation strategies. In

most cases students did seem to accept the appropriateness of the group work assessment

to their present learning and their possible job futures. A notable exception occurred in

Foreman-Peck’s study. Her 2nd year group, studying the Philosophy of Education, contained

two outspoken mature students, who had previous experience of industry, were adamant

that group work in industry was nothing like that which occurred on their degree (B.A Hons

Educational Studies) and one went further claiming that group work was ‘irrelevant’,

127

presumably to his learning. These two students threatened ‘action’ if they were put into

groups containing certain students in the class who had gained a reputation in the first year,

for being poor students who depressed their groups’ grades.

More generally speaking, although the majority of students in the case studies, welcomed

group working, the composition of groups is a major concern for both lecturers and students.

Students in their second and third years are generally very anxious to work with people they

know and can rely on. This presents a problem for dealing fairly with those who are not

‘friends’. Vinkenoog described the ‘non-friends’ as a ‘left over group’; Foreman-Peck was

faced with known disorganised and persistently absentee students, whom no group wanted;

Mellor and Entwistle identified the yearly appearance of the ‘marginalised’ student within

their groups and Vernon the effect of individuals’ differential statuses, due to their superior

technical knowledge, on the self esteem of less knowledgeable group members. Jones and

Smith, whose students are mature people, experienced at working with others, also had a

group who faced challenges when working with a group member who had learning

difficulties. Clearly, if we take Elliott’s maxim to heart, that we can only be professionally

responsible for what we can predict then we have made an advance in that it is very

probable that problems with the composition of groups will occur on a regular basis. The

variety of group difficulty is exemplified in the case studies. It is worth noting that Jones and

Smith, working with mature students, did not experience major difficulties as these students

were grouped according to their interest in the topic, rather than friendship. In Foreman-

Peck’s experience, the majority of the students privileged friendship over interest in the

topic: the minority who wished for a topic based organisation were those without friends.

Clearly there are ethical issues here: how should group composition be decided when it is

obvious that certain group members are isolated, marginalised, unreliable or perceived to be

deficient in other ways? How should lecturers deal with the anxieties that, as Jones and

Smith’s study shows, even mature and experienced students feel when they realise the

interdependent nature of group working and the fact that their grades depend, to a large

extent on others’ efforts and talents.

Alongside this main ethical concern were practical issues which also had an ethical

dimension. How could groups be best supported during their group work and how influential

should the supporting tutor be? How should marginalised or isolated students be supported,

128

and would it be equitable to offer them special support not available to the others? How was

the problem of persistent absenteeism to be dealt with?

A further common theme was the quality of group working. Many students paid lip service

to the ideal of collaboration which we saw as supporting each person’s particular allotted

work tasks. In Foreman-Peck’s study, initial meetings served to ‘dole’ out the jobs, but after

that, for at least some of the groups, there would be no meetings until just before the role

play or presentation.

What was learnt from the interventions?

Action research is a powerful form of research for lecturers and other professionals because

it involves taking informed action and learning from it. This does not necessarily mean that

the action taken turns out to have been the most optimal, or that the methods used to

research the consequences of the action could not have been improved. Action research is a

learning process and as such we learn from what went right and what went wrong.

In the case studies lecturers attempted to further their learning through a variety of actions.

Vinkenoog, for instance introduce two extra miles stones to help his students in their journey

over perilous ‘ravines’ and arduous ‘peaks’. He introduced two required and assessed

progress reports.

Each progress report was to contain among other things, minutes of meetings so far, the

distribution of work in the group and reports by individuals of their contributions. The first

progress report meeting set aims for the next and gave a structure to the project. The

individual reports allowed Vinkenoog to assess the amount of work each student was doing -

they functioned not only as a ‘parasite detector’ but also a way of each member in the group

telling each other the importance of the work they were contributing to the group.

Vinkenoog also argued that this new requirement would be helpful in preventing some

students seeing themselves as ‘second rate’ members (the problem also identified by

Vernon), since the decisions about who would do what were made by the group and

minuted. It also gave him a chance to intervene if any group member was given work that

was non-biotechnical. In the second progress meeting, students were asked to identify how

they had supported the work of other members of the group. This, he guessed, might stop

the situation identified also by Foreman-Peck, where some groups’ members worked

129

separately and individually and came together at the last minute to throw a presentation

together. This intervention made each contribution and group processes more transparent.

Unfortunately the system was not immune to ‘moral hazard’. One group member falsified

the minutes to cover up for another’s absences and no contribution. An advantage of

Vinkenoog’s new structure was however that what was invisible before was now visible and

problems of group working processes can be unearthed and discussed. Vinkenoog

comments that in industry there would not be this amount of support/surveillance.

However, he concludes that there are limits to the possibility of full simulation: universities

are not industries, and tutors have an obligation to teach and support.

Foreman-Peck intervened by setting a small formative group presentation assignment which

mirrored the assessed assignment. Students were happy to do this, seeing it as a practice

run. Students were asked to write a paragraph on their experiences of doing the group work.

What became apparent was that two out of the five groups did not function as groups,

although this could not have been detected in their presentations! Problems also occurred in

the other groups of a less disastrous but still troubling kind. The intervention was useful in

that it made her aware of the range of practical problems that our students faced:

incompatible timetables, clashing assessment deadlines, poor attendance from some

students, language difficulties (one student was not resident in the UK). Reflecting on this

she reduced the work burden for the next assessment by providing source material and

allowing class time for group working. She designed the presentation so that each person

was required to contribute 5 minutes. She asked for minutes of meetings to be kept and

signed as a true record by all. She spent some time in discussing what to do with non

attending or poorly attending students. It was decided to introduce a requirement that non

attending students would not be allowed to take part in the presentation unless they had

submitted a 500 word contribution to the Chair of the group in advance and that they would

have to present last, in effect summing up and commenting on the other students work.

Without the written work however they would fail the presentation component. The

students argued for a general attendance regulation for the whole degree, as attendance was

a problem in other modules. Students were still unsatisfied by being allocated ‘weak

students’. A proposed future solution is that students be allocated randomly.

Vernon’s intervention consisted of a Meta Plan (Schnelle 2000) session carried out by a

member of the Academic Practice Centre who was very supportive of our project. Her

130

concern was with those members of the group who appeared to be ‘free riders’ but were in

fact students who had lost self esteem and confidence as more technically competent

students came to dominate. This was carried out at a time when Vernon knew from

experience that the original momentum for the project would be waning. The technique

allowed students to reflect on their group work experience and to vote for the issue that was

of most concern. The students chose the issue of unequal commitment and unequal

workload. Students were then asked to suggest strategies to overcome the issues. As one

might expect they ranged from ‘carry each other along’ to ‘replace slacking team members’.

Vernon also asked students to give an individual presentation to their own group about how

they had fulfilled their role. This served to adjust roles and workload in some cases. Vernon

noted that a structured discussion about group work was far more effective after the

students had experienced working together than it had been at the start of the module, and

that awareness of group dynamics had increased. In follow up interviews those students

who came (50%) expressed enthusiasm for the interventions. Those engaged in non

technical work had the importance of their role endorsed, and the intervention served as a

correction to some individuals dominating. One group asked to have individual marks rather

than a group mark, suggesting that they were unable to achieve a satisfactory working

relationship. This option recognises and deals with the fact that however much tutors try to

create conditions for harmonious team working, contextual factors are too complex to

guarantee successful outcomes for all. Vernon’s solution has the merit of allowing students

to decide for themselves.

Jones and Smith’s study started with changing the assessment gradings to more precisely

reflect individual contributions. In the previous year the group mark had concealed

differential input with an 80% weighting for the group mark and a 20% weighting for the

individual diary and reflective statement. In the case study reported here the authors altered

the weightings to 60% and 40% respectively. The authors were interested in whether

students would perceive the weightings as fair and whether the role of the supporting tutor

was perceived as a fair one. Although the initial interest was in the weightings, the authors’

interest expanded to include the students’ experience of group working. The authors found

that the earlier cohort accepted the fairness of the weightings, but were possibly unaware of

their significance. The majority of the students were committed to the group outcome and

were supportive of one another. The 07-08 group experienced the altered weightings but

this did not appear to ‘create any difficulties’. Indeed the main lesson the authors point to is

131

that students do not really understand the relevance of weightings and that this is something

that should be explained and discussed with students, if assessment systems are to be seen

to be fair and transparent.

Mellor and Entwistle, whose main concern was with marginalised students, introduced four

interventions, which were intended to provide additional support without identifying those

in need of extra support. They introduced compulsory timetabled meetings with the tutor, a

discussion of their individual strengths and possible contributions to the group, formative

feedback on written reports, and the requirement for an individual written critical reflection.

These measures were ineffective for two of the three identified marginalised students, since

they were absent for most of the time; however the critical reflection raised the issue of

other marginalised students and students facing difficulties. The reports showed that even in

friendship groups, group dynamics could undermine educational purposes. Reflecting on

group composition the authors comment that tutor directed selection might be preferable

but with the proviso that the early part of the course habituated the students to working in

non self selected groups.

Sedgwick’s students were geographically dispersed for four days a week. In class time his

interventions consisted of a discussion of research ethics, particularly the ethics of action

research, and a three hour formative group exercise of designing the assessment criteria for

assessing the presentation task that they had been set, and some meeting time timetabled

into class time. These activities served to introduce and explore his research interests, but

also to introduce his students to issues of professional interest. Sedgwick’s activities were

therefore intended to provide an authentic learning experience. For studying at a distance

students had on line documents and resources about group work, and an on-line virtual

learning facility for group interaction. There were also opportunities for on line discussions.

Sedgwick found that the design of the intervention was acceptable to the students and that

they had learnt from it. As with the other case studies, other issues arose which need further

thought and investigation. One question that was foregrounded was whether it was

appropriate for group work marks to count towards degree classification.

What is to be learnt from these forays into group work assignments and assessment? Lessons

that seem ‘portable’ include the following:

132

Structures should be put in place that make group processes visible and allow for

corrections or adjustments to be made. This strengthens the validity of the

assessment, since tutors are in a better position to make judgments about relative

contributions (for e.g.see Vinkenoog, Vernon, Mellor and Entwistle).

Rubrics that ensure fair, transparent and acceptable assessment in students’ eyes,

should be devised, if necessary with the students (see for e.g. Foreman-Peck,

Vernon, Jones and Smith).

A policy for the allocation of students to groups where there are ‘problem’ or

marginalised students should be explicitly formulated and defensible as being fair

and appropriately educational (see for e.g. Mellor and Entwistle).

Group work tasks should be authentic to succeed (e.g. Vinkenoog, Vernon,

Sedgwick).

Discussion

Group work assessments differ substantially from others that students will experience at

University because of their interdependent nature. Most students will have been socialised

into expecting that individual effort and achievement will be graded, and indeed their final

degree grade will be an individual one. A radical implication of group work assignments is

that knowledge is a ‘shared good’, i.e. it is developed in discussion and collaboration with

others. Tutors have no difficulty with this idea. The fact that one may be the main

contributor in one group situation is balanced by the fact that in another situation one may

benefit from others ideas. There is an element of give and take and altruism involved in

group work and the development of knowledge. However students may not appreciate this

interpersonal dynamic, since grades are involved, and for students in ‘left over groups’ or

those that are not functioning well, this line of argument would probably not cut any ice. To

be in a dysfunctional group is not in their immediate self interest. This consideration

suggests that we re-think the wisdom of the summative assessment of group work

assessments. Because they are valuable, for all the reasons given in the case studies, it

would be a pity to lose them. One possibility is to keep them as formative assignments and

assessments, thus alleviating the assessment anxiety felt by many students. Motivation to

take part in such assignments can be maintained by designing the assessment system so that

formative projects foreshadow the requirements of summative assessments.

133

This has implications for teaching group work as well. To skills, rules and procedures should

be added the relational virtues, such as trust, respect, openness, appreciation for the efforts

of others and mutual responsibility for the maintenance of a working relationship, with

others who are, perhaps, less competent, experienced or challenged in other ways.

Conclusion

The conclusions reached here are abstracted from the narratives of the case studies. A

deeper understanding of the conclusions requires an appreciation of the contextual

background and the particular dilemmas faced by each lecturer. It is hoped that other

interested lecturers, facing similar dilemmas, will be able to use them as starting points for

their own reflections and possible action research projects.

134

About the authors

Julia Vernon

Julia is part Senior lecturer in the Business School and part Associate Head of Framework at

the University of Northampton. Before entering higher education Julia worked in the IT

department of a manufacturing company.

Paul Sedgwick

Paul’s university teaching at Northampton, has been with the degree level education of in-

service school support staff. Before that he worked for 17 years as a special needs support

teacher in primary, secondary and special schools and as a local authority advisory teacher.

Lorraine Foreman-Peck

Lorraine is currently a Research Fellow at Oxford University Department of Educational

Studies and Visiting Professor of Education at Northumbria University. Before joining Oxford,

she was a Reader in Education and the Research Leader in the University of Northampton’s

Education School.

Julie Jones

Julie is a Senior Lecturer and programme Leader for the Foundation degree in Learning and

Teaching, at the University of Northampton. Her previous experience was as a primary

school teacher and Curriculum Adviser for primary English with the Northamptonshire Local

Authority.

Andy Smith

Andy is a Senior Lecturer in Special and Inclusive Education in the Centre for Special Needs

Education and Research at the University of Northampton. Before that Andy taught for over

twenty five years in schools and colleges of further education, as a subject teacher, head of

department, Special needs Co-ordinator, Senior Teacher and Faculty Leader.

Antony Mellor

Dr Tony Mellor is a Principal Lecturer in Physical Geography and a University Teaching Fellow.

His pedagogic research interests include group work assessment, use of e-learning and

learning technologies to enhance field work teaching, and e-assessment. His subject specific

135

research interests focus on soil, sediment and water pollution dynamics in urban and

industrialised catchment systems.

Jane Entwistle

Dr. Jane Entwistle is a Soil Scientist and head of Geography in the School of Applied Sciences.

Her subject specific research interests are in the areas of soil geoarchaeology and

bioavailability and bioaccessibility of metals in environmental media. Pedagogic interests

include student group work, peer facilitation of learning and the use of digital technologies to

enhance fieldwork teaching.

Rinke Vinkenoog

Rinke is a Biologist from the low lands around Amsterdam, who is currently lost in the North

East of England. After researching the cell cycle in malaria parasites in Leiden and the

genetics of seed development in Bath, he is now mainly focussing on opening the magical

world of biology to undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Liz McDowell

Liz McDowell is Head of the Learning & Teaching Academy at Northumbria University and

Director of the CETL in Assessment for Learning. As an Academic Developer she works with

academics in a range of ways to enhance learning and teaching. Her main research interests

are in assessment and student learning.