Resources for Group Work

compiled by Elizabeth A. Lehfeldt, Cleveland State University

General considerations; a good introduction to the concept; good bibliography

http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/collaborative.html

Also general considerations; with additional links to good resources

http://tep.uoregon.edu/resources/newteach/groupwork.html

Excellent, comprehensive guide to the steps of incorporating group work into your course

http://www.iml.uts.edu.au/learnteach/groupwork/index.html

Very hands-on advice and instructions for group work resulting in collaborative writing

http://dhc.ucdavis.edu/vohs/toc.html

Group work, practically applied in an actual course

http://www.evergreen.edu/washcenter/resources/acl/b2.html
 Rubrics for a Collaborative Group Report

Outstanding Good Developing Beginning

Point Value
 5  4-3  2  1
Participates Participates in Sometimes Participates minimally.
actively.  group. Shows participates in Shows a little concern
Helps direct the concern for goals. group.  for goals. 
group in setting Participates in Shows concern for Watches but doesn't
goals.  goal setting. some goals.  participate in goal
Helps direct group Participates in Participates setting.
in meeting goals.  meeting goals.  marginally in goal Completes assigned
Participation Thoroughly Completes setting.  tasks late or turns in
completes assigned tasks. Participates in work incomplete.
assigned tasks.  Demonstrates meeting goals.  
Actively effort to help the Completes some
participates in group work assigned tasks.
helping the group together.
work together
better.

Shares many Freely shares Shares ideas when Does not share ideas.
ideas related to ideas. encouraged. Watches but does not
the goals.  Listens to others.  Allows sharing by contribute to
Encourages all Considers other all group discussions.
group members to people's feelings members. Does not show
share their ideas.  and ideas.  Listens to others.  consideration for others.
Communication
Listens attentively Considers other
to others.  people's feelings
Empathetic to and ideas. 
other people's
feelings and
ideas. 
 Rubrics for Group Activity
Criterion 4 3 2 1
Effort Produced Fully prepared; Minimal Little or no
additional completed all preparation; evidence of
resources for agreed tasks; superficial preparation;
the group; competent, but knowledge of no effort
extraordinary not resources; shown
effort extraordinary minimal effort
demonstrated
Attitude Exceptionally Positive; Neutral; Disparaging;
positive and supportive; neither negative,
constructive; mostly encouraging withdrawn or
encourages constructive and nor belligerent;
other group upbeat discouraging; absent
members disinterested in
the
performance of
others
Contribution Outstanding Good quality Poor quality Poor quality;
contribution; work; few work; little, if any,
above-and- revisions or substantive contribution to
beyond; work additions are errors; much group goals
is excellent in necessary revision and
form and editing is
substance required

Group Group Effort Attitude Contribution Total

Member
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           

Assessment option Some possible advantages Some possible disadvantages

Shared Group Mark  encourages group work -  Individual contributions

groups sink or swim are not necessarily
The group submits one together reflected in the marks
product and all group  decreases likelihood of
members receive the same plagiarism more likely  stronger students may
mark from the lecturer/tutor, with individual products be unfairly
regardless of individual from group work disadvantaged by
contribution. weaker ones and vice
 relatively versa
straightforward method

Group Average Mark  may provide motivation  may be perceived as

for students to focus on unfair by students
Individual submissions both individual and
(allocated task or individual group work and thereby  stronger students may
reports as described below) develop in both areas be unfairly
are marked individually. disadvantaged by
The group members each weaker ones and vice
then receive an average of versa
these marks.

Individual Mark  a relatively objective  difficult to find tasks

- Allocated task way of ensuring that are exactly equal in
individual participation size/complexity
Each student completes an  may provide additional  does not encourage the
allocated task that motivation to students group
contributes to the final process/collaboration
group product and gets the  potential to reward
marks for that task outstanding performance  dependencies between
 tasks may slow
progress of some
students

Individual Mark -  Ensures individual effort  precise manner in

Individual report which individual
 Perceived as fair reports should differ
Each student writes and bystudents often very unclear to
submits an individual report students
based on the group's work
on the task/project  likelihood of
unintentional
plagiarism increased

Individual Mark -  may motivatestudents  may diminish

Examination more to learn from the importance of group
group project including work
Exam questions specifically learning from the other  additional work for
target the group projects, members of the group staff in designing exam
and can only be answered questions
by students who have been
thoroughly involved in the  may not be effective,
project students may be able to
answer the questions by
reading the group
reports

Combination of Group  perceived by many  additional work for

Average and Individual students as fairer than staff in setting up
Mark shared group mark procedure for and in
negotiating adjustments
The group mark is awarded
to each member with a
mechanism for adjusting for
individual contributions
NB. Table based on Winchester-Seeto (2002).

Table 2: Options for student assessment of group product

Some possible
Assessment option Some possible advantages
disadvantages

Student distribution of  easy to implement  open to subjective

pool of marks  may motivate students evaluation by friends
 to contribute more  may lead to conflict
Lecturer/tutor awards a set  negotiation skills  may foster
number of marks and let become part of the competition and
the group decide how to learning process therefore be
distribute them.  potential to reward counterproductive to
outstanding team work
For example, the product performance
is marked 80 (out of a  students may not have
possible 100) by the  may be perceived as the skills necessary
lecturer. There are four fairer than shared or for the required
members of the group. average group mark negotiation
Four by 80 = 240 so there alone
are 240 marks to distribute
to the four members. No
one student can be given
less than zero or more than
100. If members decide
that they all contributed
equally to the product then
each member would
receive a mark of 80. If
they decided that some of
the group had made a
bigger contribution, then
those members might get
85 or 90 marks and those
who contributed less
would get a lesser mark.

Students allocate As above As above

individual weightings

Lecture/tutor gives shared

group mark, which is
adjusted according to a
peer assessment factor.
The individual student's
mark comes from the
group mark multiplied by
the peer assessment factor
(eg. X 0.5 for 'half'
contribution or X 1 for
'full' contribution)
Peer Evaluation -  helps clarify criteria to  time may have to be
random marker, using be used for assessment invested in teaching
criteria, moderated  encourages a sense of students to evaluate
involvement and each other
Completed assessment responsibility
items are randomly  assists students to  staff moderation is
distributed to students who develop skills in time consuming
are required tocomplete a independent judgement
marking sheet identifying  increases feedback to
whether their peer has met students
the assessment criteria and  random allocation
awarding a mark. These addresses potential
marks are moderated by friendship and other
the staff member and influences on
together with the peer assessment
marking sheets are
returned with the  may provide
assessment item. experience parallel to
career situations where
peer judgement occurs

NB. Table based on Winchester-Seeto (2002).

Table 3: Options for lecturer/tutor assessment of group process

Some possible
Assessment option Some possible advantages
disadvantages

Individual mark - based  logs can potentially  Reviewing logs can

on records/observation provide plenty of be time consuming
of process information to form for lecturer/tutor
basis of assessment  Students may need a
Each individual group  keeping minute sheets lot of training and
member's contribution (as helps members to experience in keeping
defined by predetermined focus on the process - records
criteria) is assessed using a learning experience  Emphasis on second
evidence from: in itself hand evidence -
 team log books reliability an issue
 minutes sheets  May be perceived as a
and/or fair way to deal with  direct observation by
 direct observation 'shirkers' and a lecturer/tutor likely
of process outstanding to change the nature
contributions of interaction in the
And they are awarded a group
mark

Group average mark  makes students focus  reviewing logs can be

-based on on their operation as a time consuming
records/observation of team  students may need a
process  logs can provide plenty lot of training and
of information to form experience
Each individual group basis of assessment  emphasis on second
member's contribution (as hand evidence -
defined by predetermined  keeping minute sheets reliability an issue
criteria) is assessed using helps members to
evidence from: focus on the process -  averaging the mark
a learning experience may be seen as unfair
 team log books in itself to those who have
 minutes sheets contributed more than
and/or others
 direct observation
of process.

The group members each

then receive an average of
these marks.

Individual mark  helps students to focus  information from

- for paper analysing on the process students may be
process subjective and/or
 minimises inaccurate
Marks attributed for an opportunities for
individual paper from each plagiarism  may increase
student analysing the assessment burden for
group process, including lecturer/tutor
their own contribution that
of student colleagues

NB. Table based on Winchester-Seeto (2002).

Table 4: Options for student assessment of group process

Some possible
Assessment option Some possible advantages
disadvantages

Peer Evaluation -  helps clarify criteria to  may increase

average mark, using be used for assessment lecturer/tutor
predetermined criteria  Encourages sense of workload in terms of -
involvement and briefing students
Students in a group responsibility on part about the process -
individually evaluate each of students ensuring the criteria
other's contribution using  May assist students to are explicit and clear -
a predetermined list of develop skills in teaching students how
criteria. The final mark is independent judgement to evaluate each other
an average of all marks  Provides  students may allow
awarded by members of detailedfeedback to friendships to
the group. students influence their
 Provides experience assessment -
parallel to career reliability an issue
situations where group
judgement is made  students may not
perceive this system
 May reduce lecturer's as fair because of the
marking load possibility of being
discriminated against

Self evaluation-  helps clarify criteriato  may increase

moderated mark, using be used for assessment lecturer/tutor
predetermined criteria  Encourages sense of workload in terms of -
involvement and briefing students
Students individually responsibility on part about the process -
evaluate their own of students ensuring the criteria
contribution using for success are
predetermined criteria and  May assist students to explicit and clear -
award themselves a mark. develop skills in teaching students how
Lecturers/tutors moderate independent judgement to evaluate
the marks awarded. themselves

 self evaluations may

be perceived as
unreliable

NB. Table based on Winchester-Seeto (2002).

Source: http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/03/group.html