Please note that due to electrical upgrades, EV1 will be closed from August 7 till at least August 21. The CTE Library will be unavailable during that time, and CTE staff will be relocated to Needles Hall.

Methods for Assessing Group Work

Introduction

Students should be made aware of assessment before starting the project

  • assessment method
  • criteria (product and/or process)

Group of students working through a math problem on a dry erase boardProduct versus process

  • assessing the product - measuring the quantity and quality of individual work in a group project
  • assessing the process - evaluating individual teamwork skills and interaction

Assessment by instructor versus by group members

  • by instructor - instructor assigns all marks
  • by group members - group members evaluate their contributions to the group and assign marks

Product assessment by instructor

Equally shared mark

  • All group members receive same grade
Advantages Disadvantages
  • Easiest to implement - does not require any additional work aside from marking the projects
  • Appropriate if group work mark is a minor part of total mark for the course
  • Group responsibilities are enforced - group succeeds or fails together
  • Individual contributions are not reflected in the distribution of marks
  • Poor students may benefit from the work of hard-working students
  • Good students may be dragged down by poor students
  • Does not motivate students

Exam questions

  • Questions should be specifically about the project, and are answerable only by students who have been thoroughly involved in the project
Advantages Disadvantages
  • May increase interest in the project - students may be more motivated to learn about the work of their fellow group members
  • Students may ignore group in order to study
    for the exam on their own
  • May mean additional work for instructor when preparing the exam questions
  • May not be effective - students may be able to answer the questions by simply proofreading
    the project

Splitting tasks

  • Project must be divisible into multiple tasks of the same complexity
  • Each student is responsible for one task
  • Final mark is part group mark (e.g., 50%) and part individual task mark (e.g., 50%)
Advantages Disadvantages
  • objective way of determining individual participation
  • individual component grade may provide additional motivation
  • May increase interest in the project - students may be more motivated to learn about the work of their fellow group members
  • Students may ignore group in order to study for the exam on their own
  • May mean additional work for instructor when preparing the exam questions
  • May not be effective - students may be able to answer the questions by simply proofreading the project

Direct evaluation

  • Instructor judges individual merits
  • Oral interviews
  • Periodic reports
  • Meeting minutes
  • Observation
Advantages Disadvantages
  • oral interviews are a good way of getting information on individual participation
  • enables instructor to give each student more specific feedback
  • very time consuming
  • information obtained is often subjective and/or may be inaccurate
  • class size may make it infeasible

Product assessment by peer evaluation

Issues with peer evaluation:

  • Should we use self-assessment?
  • Should instructor adjust marks?
  • Should it be done individually or collectively by consensus?

Distribution of a pool of marks (see Appendix for example)

  • Award the group a mark equal to (group mark) X (no. of group members)
  • Let group divide marks among themselves
Advantages Disadvantages
  • easy to implement
  • peer assessment may motivate students to
    contribute more to the group
  • open to subjective evaluations by students (e.g., giving friends high marks as opposed to those who contributed the most)
  • opens the doors to personal conflicts between group members
  • may foster competition
  • may be difficult for students to evaluate each other without objective criteria

Individual weighting factor (see Appendix for example)

  • Points awarded for a list of tasks
  • Individual mark = (group mark) X (peer assessment factor)
Advantages Disadvantages
  • provides students with objective criteria by which to judge individual contributions
  • time consuming for instructor
  • rating scale may be misinterpreted
  • tasks all have the same weight

Process assessment

List of skills to assess, such as:

  • adoption of complementary team roles
  • cooperative behaviour
  • time and task management
  • creative problem solving
  • use of a range of working methods
  • negotiation

Process assessment by instructor

Direct evaluation of team behaviour using teamwork logs - sample questions:

  • what steps have you taken to organize your teamwork?
  • what steps have you taken to monitor the effectiveness of your team?
  • what steps have you taken to improve the effectiveness of your team?
  • what problems have you encountered in working as a team and how did you tackle them?
  • if you were to embark on a second, similar task as a team, what would be different about the way you go about working, and why?
Advantages Disadvantages
  • makes students reflect on their operation as a team
  • logs provide plenty of information that can be used as a basis for assessment
  • reviewing logs can be very time-consuming
  • students may need training in order to be aware of what goes on in the teams

Process assessment by peer evaluation

  • Individual assessment (see Appendix for example)
  • how members view each member of the team
  • use lists of key group work traits
  • average of individual marks must be the same as the group mark
Advantages Disadvantages
  • gives a personalized view of each member's contributions
  • list of traits provides students with objective criteria
  • time consuming and complex; instructor must check results
  • list of traits may not give a true measure of the group work process
  • students may misinterpret traits

References

  • Gibbs, G. Learning in Teams: a Tutor Guide. Oxford, 1995.
  • Lejk, M. et al. A Survey of Methods of Deriving Individual Grades from Group Assessments. In Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Vol. 21, No. 3, 1996.

Appendix with numerical examples

Example for distribution of a pool of marks

  • Group project mark: 70
  • No. of group members: 4
  • Instructor awards 280 points to group
  • Advises students that difference between marks must not be greater than 20
  • Group members divide marks by consensus as follows:
Student Mark
A 80
B 60
C 75
D 65
Total = 280

Example for individual weighting factor

List of tasks Ann Bob Chris
a) Literature search 3 4 1
(b) Analysing the literature 4 5 1
(c) Writing a report 1 2 4
(d) Group presentation 3 1 1
Individual Totals 11 12 7

Rating scale

1 -Did not contribute in this way
2 -Willing but not very successful
3 -Average
4 -Above Average
5 -Outstanding

Peer assessment factor = (individual total) / (average total)
Average of individual totals = 10
If project mark = 60

Individual marks:

Ann = 60 * (11/10) = 66
Bob = 60 * (12/10) = 72
Chris = 60 * (7/10) = 42


Example for individual assessment

3 group members (Ann, Bob, Chris), no self-assessment

Student name: Ann
Evaluated by: Bob (marks selected are in boldface in this example)

Aspect of team functioning well below average below average average above average well above average
1. Forming good team cohesion -2 -1 0 1 2
2. Leadership, managing meetings -2 -1 0 1 2
3. Planning and allocating tasks -2 -1 0 1 2
4. Generating ideas and solutions -2 -1 0 1 2
5. Tackling team social problems -2 -1 0 1 2
6. Organising individuals to do jobs -2 -1 0 1 2
7. Helping team members to finish jobs -2 -1 0 1 2
8. Willingly taking on unpopular jobs -2 -1 0 1 2
Instructor’s mark for team project Sum of evaluation marks Individual mark for Ann given by Bob
60% +3 63%

Note: Bob’s evaluation of Chris must add up to -3

Student name: Ann
Evaluated by: Chris

Aspect of team functioning well below average below average average above average well above average
1. Forming good team cohesion -2 -1 0 1 2
2. Leadership, managing meetings -2 -1 0 1 2
3. Planning and allocating tasks -2 -1 0 1 2
4. Generating ideas and solutions -2 -1 0 1 2
5. Tackling team social problems -2 -1 0 1 2
6. Organising individuals to do jobs -2 -1 0 1 2
7. Helping team members to finish jobs -2 -1 0 1 2
8. Willingly taking on unpopular jobs -2 -1 0 1 2
Instructor’s mark for team project Sum of evaluation marks Individual mark for Ann given by Chris
60% +1 61%

Note: Chris’ evaluation of bob must add up to -1

Ann’s final mark: (63 + 61) / 2 = 62%

teaching tipsThis Creative Commons license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon our work non-commercially, as long as they credit us and indicate if changes were made. Use this citation format: Methods for assessing group work. Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo.