1

Faculty Fundamentals

FLBCA & FAESS September 2011

Making Groupwork Work!

Contacts

A/Prof Stephen Naylor 3162

A/Prof Kay Martinez 4980

2

Contents Purpose ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Why do we persist with getting students to work in groups? ....................................................................................... 3

Learning, Teaching and Assessment Policy ................................................................................................................ 3

JCU Graduate attributes ........................................................................................................................................... 3

ALTC Academic Learning and Teaching Standards ..................................................................................................... 3

What does the literature highlight? ............................................................................................................................. 4

Excerpts from Student Experience of Group Work and Group Assessment in Higher Education by Ahmed Hassanien . 4

Australian Learning and Teaching Council ................................................................................................................. 6

Key areas for discussion associated with Group work................................................................................................ 7

Assessing group work .................................................................................................................................................. 8

Diagnostic assessment ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Summative assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Formative assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 8

Informal assessment involves: ............................................................................................................................. 8

Formal assessment involves: ............................................................................................................................... 8

Excerpts from Groupwork as a form of assessment: common problems and recommended solutions. W. Martin Davies .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9

A Selection of Group Work Rubrics ..........................................................................................................................12

Backwards Design - Planning from the assessment to the task ....................................................................................19

Team selection .......................................................................................................................................................19

Belbin Team Role Theory (a contested theory) ........................................................................................................19

Evaluating Belbins theory .......................................................................................................................................21

Spark ..........................................................................................................................................................................21

Group projects aren't fair ...................................................................................................................................23

Software Functionality .......................................................................................................................................24

Overview ...........................................................................................................................................................24

Step-by-Step for academics ................................................................................................................................25

Step-by-Step for students ...................................................................................................................................25

How to Interpret Spark Factors ...........................................................................................................................26

How to Interpret Individuals Spark Radar Diagrams .............................................................................................27

Group Work General comments from Flinders University ...........................................................................................29

Benefits in Using Group Work: ............................................................................................................................29

When to Use Groupwork ....................................................................................................................................29

Setting Up Teams ...............................................................................................................................................30

Strategies That Enhance Effective Group Assignments ........................................................................................30

Benefits of Groupwork .......................................................................................................................................30

Phil Race Chapter 4 Making small-group teaching work ..............................................................................................32

Why is small group learning so important? ..............................................................................................................32

Twelve tips for doing effective Team-Based Learning (TBL) .........................................................................................33

3

Purpose

To look at how we deal with group work, especially focusing on assessment.

We would like to raise some of the key issues that have been addressed in the new Learning Teaching and Assessment Policy and recognise the benefits, limitations and problems associated with group work.

SPARKPLUS (you may wish to visit the site http://spark.uts.edu.au.)

Why do we persist with getting students to work in groups?

Learning, Teaching and Assessment Policy

Group work = refers to learning activities, (usually project based) undertaken by a number of students, resulting in an outcome presenting a single piece of assessment or a number of associated pieces of assessment.

3.1.1 In all subjects a variety of resources, teaching methods and approaches to learning will be considered and adopted, in recognition of the diversity of the student body.

5.4.5 There will be no more than 50% assessment for group work, unless there is scope for individual differentiation of the components of the shared group grade.

5.5 For group work, subject coordinators must provide plans for alternative individual assessment where the subject coordinator has agreed that a group will be disbanded.

JCU Graduate attributes

Self Reliance and Interpersonal Understanding

the ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences; the ability to lead, manage and contribute effectively to teams; the ability to work with people of different gender, age, ethnicity, culture, religion and

political persuasion; the ability to work individually and independently.

ALTC Academic Learning and Teaching Standards

Accounting = Communication and teamwork

Creative and Performing Arts = Work independently and collaboratively in the Creative and Performing Arts Discipline in response to project demands.

Geography= Contribute effectively as a member or leader of diverse teams working in collaborating geographical or multidisciplinary contexts. Law = Graduates of the Bachelor of Laws will be able to: (b) collaborate effectively.

4

What does the literature highlight?

Both academics and employers recognise the importance of group work in preparation for real world experiences; however, many students dislike group work as it is seen as an inequitable system of learning, artificial in the formation of the groups and unfair in the areas of monitoring and assessment.

There is also a perception by students that they are inadequately prepared to undertake group projects and the methods for assessment do not assist in understanding processes and practices of group work efficiencies nor do they discriminate between the process and the product.

Excerpts from Student Experience of Group Work and Group Assessment in Higher Education by Ahmed Hassanien

Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wttt20

ABSTRACT. Collaborative learning continues to be an area that is increasingly receiving attention in academic fields. This is because group-based or cooperative learning has many benefits to individual student learning (Slavin, 1996). In addition, group work and group assessment, have, over the past few years, become integral components of many undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in the UK and all over the world (Houldsworth & Mathews, 2000). The primary focus of this study is to explore the feelings and experience of students regarding group work and group assessment in Higher Education (HE). (p17) On the other hand, most of previous research on group learning in HE is limited though there is a growing realization of this challenge (Fisher, Shaw, & Ryder, 1994; Lerner, 1995; Lundberg & Lundberg, 1992; McGraw & Tidwell, 2001). There is little empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness and success as a learning and assessment method within the context of HE (Hughes, 2002). Moreover, the same author argues that many HE institutes are not adequately prepared to provide the essential requirements and support for effective group learning. As a result, student experience usually falls below their expectations. Therefore, the main aim of this research is to explore student experience of group work and group assessment at the School of Sport, Performing Arts and Leisure (SSPAL). Accordingly, the objectives of the study are to

explore student attitudes towards group work and group assessment; investigate the main challenges in group work; and measure the effectiveness of some strategic tools to enhance group work. (pp19-20)

Group Work Assessment There is little doubt that assessing students, performance is the most important thing for them (Brown & Knight, 1994). Therefore, teachers have to carry out this assessment professionally and effectively to (1) monitor, support and motivate students; (2) maintain standards; (3) provide feedback to students and themselves; and (4) prepare students for life (Brown & Knight; Race & Brown, 1998). There are two different types of assessment: (1) Informal and formative, within the teaching process and (2) summative, making formal decisions about progress and level of achievement (Biggs, 2003). Assessment could be carried out by (1) the module tutors, (2) the students via self-assessment and peer assessment and/or (3) external body (Brown & Knight, 1994; Freeman&Lewis, 1998). To be effective, assessment needs to be valid, reliable, practicable, fair and useful (Ellington, Percival,&Race, 1993). At SSPAL, both the summative and formative types of assessment are used to grade group work. Tutors use the formative assessment to prepare students for the summative ones. As suggested by Falchikov (1986, 1995), students are involved in the assessment process through self-assessment and peer- assessment. Students are given some indication of how well they have done and how to

5

improve through both a general feedback to the whole group and a specific feedback with grades to individuals. (pp23-24) Challenges Respondents were asked to identify the main challenges they face when working within a group. Information relating to these challenges, in Table 2, indicates that Poor attendance at group meetings (62.5%) was the most important group work challenge, followed by Getting credit without doing equal work (52.8%). At the other end of the scale, culturally different approaches to work, and varying work ethics were the least important group work challenges. Discussion in focus groups provides further clarification regarding the main challenges of group work. Further explanation is provided by the following statements:

One of the problems I faced in terms of group communication was that there were occasions we could not arrange a suitable time to meet and discuss progression. This was mainly due to other academic and social commitments of individual members. Also the response time for emails was prolonged on a few occasions, and members did not answer mobile calls for whatever reason. (FGS7)

I felt that certain members of the group were relying on other group members to complete tasks, and basically were not pulling their weight to provide equal amount of contribution. The bottom line is, they were in for a free ride. (FGS10)

In one of my group projects, there were certain individuals who would not attend meetings that were arranged and give endless excuses for their absence. (FGS9)

I felt that the members who were not attending the group meetings regularly and also not responding to emails and phone calls, were given less tasks to complete because they were unreliable and the concerned members did not want their grades to be affected. (FGS3)

When we are allocated in groups by the tutor and not personal preference, usually we face the problem of having members whose grade expectations and work standards are lower than mine. Therefore this has either has an impact on the final grade or we have to spend time trying to teach and explain to the under achieving members of what is required. But on some occasions, if this member is basically not bothered about a high grade, then we end up doing his work. (FGS4)

There have been occasions when I have worked with members who dont adequately understand team work. For example they felt intimidated by our comments and observations. (FGS5)

In my last presentation, our group found it difficult to rehearse due to reasons beyond our control, such as unavailability of space and equipment. (FGS11)

I feel that some tutors do not get involved even a little bit when groups are facing problems. They use an easy escape route. (FGS1)

Although its a group work, I believe that everyone should be assessed individually. (FGS6) Some group members just dont like to be told by others. In such occasions, I felt we needed

a formal leader who could motivate individuals and facilitate the process. (FGS8) These findings support earlier studies by Fisher et al. (1994) McGraw and Tidwell (2001), and Group Work (n.d.) who state that group work is always associated with many problems or challenges. These quotes also highlight the importance of training and motivation. Students should receive training in group learning (Cockrell, Caplow, & Donaldson, 2000; Oliver & Omari, 2001) such as how to set goals, share roles and communicate in a way that promotes deeper understanding of the material to be learned. However, training should not be restricted to a one-time workshop. In addition to providing training and ongoing monitoring, faculty should include group reward valued by the students and ensure that individual contributions to the groups can be assessed as indicated by social loafing theory (Shepperd, 1993). Strategic Tools Students were also asked to identify the level of importance in relation to some strategic tools, which can be used to improve the effectiveness of group work. Information relating to these tools, in Table 3 indicates that dedicated assignment seminars (77.8%) is the most important tool, followed by Formal Lecture on group and team work (66.7%). These results support what has been previously discussed in the literature by Brown and Knight (1994), Davis (1993), Fiechtner and Davis

6

(1992), McGraw and Tidwell (2001), Race and Brown (1998) and Smith (1986). Surprisingly, peer assessment was found to be the least important strategic tool to enhance group work. The issue was further explained by the following statements:

Usually you work with your friends and of course you do not want to offend any of them. (FGS4)

I do not want them to lose any grades because of me. (FGS12) It is only effective when there have been serious problems among group members. For

example, if a group member never turned up. (FGS7) Even when the group members are not all friends, you still feel guilty if you mark any of

them down. (FGS2) This finding reflects the arguments of Levine and Russo (1987), and Houldsworth and Mathews (2000) who asserted that students do not like to criticize their friends nor make derisory comments about peers with whom they are not too familiar. It is, therefore, incumbent upon tutors to educate students to the value of acquiring skills in appraising others input to projects. Peer assessment is an excellent means of acquiring such skills. In addition, discussions in focus groups further confirm, elaborate and explore about the ideas that could make group work more effective.

I prefer to pick my group members without any tutor involvement. I like to be allocated into a group only when I am new to the class. (FGS3)

Although we have experienced the two types (group and individual) of grading we prefer the individual grading method as we feel it is more useful and fair. (FGS6)

Make more resources available to facilitate our rehearsing activities and preparation. For example, one of the weekly sessions should be specialized for this purpose. (FGS5)

Tutors should be more involved in their group problems to sort them out. We require more tutor assistance in general and regarding our group problems particularly. (FGS4)

Australian Learning and Teaching Council

http://www.altc.edu.au/resources?text=group+work+

7

http://creative.canberra.edu.au/groupwork/Intro/Frameset.html

Key areas for discussion associated with Group work

Appropriateness of the subject for group work (year level, subject outcomes, size of class, facilities available, access to equipment/materials/community )

Weighting of the assessment within the subject Allocation of time and scheduling Dysfunctional groups or group members Formation of groups (random, self-selecting, strategic selection) Process outcomes (learning) Product outcomes Assessment type (formative or summative) Peer assessment Grade allocation within the group (equal, peer assessed, process versus product,

differentiated grades)

Efficiencies in delivering teaching and learning associated with group work.

8

Assessing group work

Types of assessment practices

Source (http://sydney.edu.au/education_social_work/groupwork/docs/TypesOfAssessment.pdf)

Diagnostic assessment is often undertaken at the beginning of a unit of study to assess the skills, abilities, interests,

experiences, levels of achievement or difficulties of an individual student or a whole class

can involve formal measurements (e.g. IQ/aptitude tests, fitness tests) that are used to establish a starting point or baseline OR informal measurements (e.g. observation, discussions, questioning)

informs programming and planning, and learning and teaching methods used, as well as assessment choices.

Summative assessment assists you to make judgements about student achievement at certain relevant points in the

learning process or unit of study (e.g. end of course, project, semester, unit, year)

can be used formally to measure the level of achievement of learning outcomes (e.g. tests, labs, assignments, projects, presentations etc.)

can also be used to judge programme, teaching and/or unit of study effectiveness (that is as a form

of evaluation).

Formative assessment is the practice of building a cumulative record of student achievement

usually takes place during day to day learning experiences and involves ongoing, informal

observations throughout the term, course, semester or unit of study

is used to monitor students ongoing progress and to provide immediate and meaningful feedback

assists teachers in modifying or extending their programmes or adapting their learning and

teaching methods

is very applicable and helpful during early group work processes.

Informal assessment involves: systematically observing and monitoring students during in class learning and teaching experiences

interacting with students to gain a deeper knowledge of what they know, understand and can do

circulating the classroom and posing questions, guiding investigations, motivating and quizzing students

providing opportunities for students to present or report upon their learning and teaching

experiences

collecting, analysing, and providing feedback on in and out of class work samples (e.g. how their group work projects are progressing).

Formal assessment involves: the use of specific assessment strategies to determine the degree to which students have achieved

the learning outcomes

9

assessment strategies including: essays, exams, reports, projects, presentations, performances, laboratories or workshops, resource development, artwork, creative design tasks, quizzes and tests, journal writing, portfolio

individual and/or collaborative tasks that usually attract a mark (group work may include both an individual and group component).

Excerpts from Groupwork as a form of assessment: common problems and recommended solutions. W. Martin Davies High Education (2009) 58:563584.

Abstract This paper reviews some of the literature on the use of groupwork as a form of assessment in tertiary institutions. It outlines the considerable advantages of groupwork but also its systemic associated problems. In discussing the problems, the paper considers issues such as free riding and the sucker effect, issues associated with ethnic mix in groups, and the social dilemma problemin which students face conflicting demands between altruism and self-interest. (p543) The problems with groupwork motivation of participants has been noted to be one of the most serious problems in groupwork (Kerr and Bruun 1983; Morgan 2002). Some group members may be reluctant participants in assessment tasks and be uncommitted to the aims of the group (and the subject for that matter). Motivational issues can arise as a result. Examples of motivational issues associated with groupwork are social loafing and free riding. These issues have received considerable attention in the literature (Jones 1984; Lantane et al. 1979; Ruel et al. 2003; Strong and Anderson 1990; Watkins 2004). Free-riding has also prompted what is called an inequity based motivation loss (sometimes known as the sucker effect) where capable students reduce their input into a project when they experience free-riding (Kerr 1983; Mulvey and Klein 1998). The relationship between the ethnic mix of students in a group and grades has also been the subject of discussion as a problem with groupwork tasks. An additional problem in the literature is the social dilemma of maximising advantages to a group while being principally concerned with maximising the advantages to oneself as an individual (Watkins 2004). These issues will be discussed in the sections that follow. In Recommendations for implementing groupwork a number of recommendations to deal with these problems are provided. The free-rider problem Free-riding has been defined as follows: The problem of the non-performing group member who reaps the benefits of the accomplishments of the remaining group members with little or no cost to him/herself (Morris and Hayes 1997). Free-riding has been distinguished in the literature from social loafing (Watkins 2004). The difference is this: social loafing is a reduction in effort due to not being noticed or lack of identification in a group task. Free-riding is actively obtaining reward for no effort. Thus, social loafing can lead to free-riding. In other papers, the terms are used interchangeably (Brooks and Ammons 2003; Strong and Anderson 1990). One way of solving the problem of social loafing and free-riding is to carefully consider the nature of the task given to students and to reward the effort of groups as well as reward the work of individuals. However, this is harder than it sounds. Tasks need to be designed to maximise students contributions and to recognise and notice their efforts. Ways of doing this will be discussed in a later section (see Recognition of effort). The sucker effect problem The Sucker effect refers to individuals responding to others free-riding upon their efforts by free-riding themselves (Kerr 1983). It appears that competent students try to avoid being suckers. They

10

make a calculation of whether or not they are the subject of free-riding from others in the group. If they are, and they feel it unjustifiable, they try to avoid being a sucker by reducing their own input to the task. Kerr has shown that students will even choose to fail as a group rather than be a sucker (Kerr 1983). It is suggested that the sucker effect problem is the cause of procrastination in many groupwork activities. Conscientious students find it hard to get the attention and compliance of free-riders and decide not to proceed alone until a deadline is imminent (Strong and Anderson 1990). But the situation is more complex than it appears. Watkins claims that competent students are less likely to think of themselves as suckers if they genuinely feel that they are covering for a member of the group who is unlikely to succeed by themselves. Thus, one way of minimising the sucker effect is to allow members of groups to get to know each other better. If this happens, competent students may be less inclined to feel like suckers and are less likely to free-ride (Watkins 2004). In ad hoc, short term groups where group members do not socialise as readilythis way of overcoming the problem might be less effective. However, this is only part of a solution, of course. A better solution will reduce free-ridingand maximise the contributionsof all students in groupwork activities. However, this is also easier said than done. We shall revisit is problem later in the paper. Groupwork and ethnic mix A related issue discussed in the literature is the effect of culturally mixed groups on grades. It is often observed in English-speaking universities that culturally dissimilar groups do not spontaneously mix. Students from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB) do not contribute as much in class or in groupwork discussions as local students (Volet and Ang 1998). Other literature indicates that this problem occurs less in online environments. Here, contributions from NESB students in group discussions are more forthcoming (Freiermuth 2001). In classes that are not diverse, lack of communication among different ethnic groups is a problem for effective groupwork. In one paper, medium levels (i.e., 3338%) of classroom diversity, i.e., students coming from culturally dissimilar backgrounds, are positively (though not always significantly) related to the reported educational gains of students. By contrast, low and high levels of diversity may be negatively related to learning gains (Terenzini et al. 2001). An important issue is whether multicultural groups with NESB students tend to achieve lower average scores in groupwork projects. If true, this might be a plausible explanation of the sucker effect. Local native-English speaking students avoid ethnically diverse groups because they obtain lower grades when they join them. When forced to join them this invites the sucker effect, and free-riding by conscientious students. However, perhaps surprisingly, studies have not confirmed the link between ethnicity and lower grades. Multiculturalism in groups has no significant negative impact on grades (in fact a positive impact has been detected) and grades are not necessarily determined by the least able member of the group (De Vita 2002). But culture has some influence on behaviour in groups. Melles has found, in a smallscale qualitative study, that ethnically diverse students perceive the advantages and challenges of groupwork in a similar way to native English speakers. However, he did find differences in the way that ethnically-diverse groups tackled issues in groupwork. Specifically, the cultural and linguistic background influenced the way students responded to groupwork debates. They tended to take up discourses that reinforced their own culture and language and identity, and that there was an observed correlation between language choice and the general positions taken up by students (Melles 2004). This can be a good thing insofar as a plurality of views can be heard. It can be a bad thing if it leads to freeriding (for example, if culturally-reinforced habits of being quiet in a groupand allowing native-English speakers to dominate discussionstifles the contribution from the non-native English speaker(s)). Another way in which the composition of groups might be negative is when most of the written work is taken over by the students with the best language fluency (an understandable practice, but an unfair one). This is particularly a problem in some universities where very large numbers of NESB students are being educated. Careful selection of groupwork tasks with multiple duties (not all requiring a high level of competence in English) might be a partial solution to this. Instituting a policy

11

of multiculturally diverse groups is therefore, not in itself negative, as long as practices to minimise free-riding are adopted in parallel. I shall be returning to the topic of task selection later. There is a sizable literature on the influence of gender and groupwork (Cohen and Mullender 2002; Pryor 1995; Scanlon 2000). However, this is not discussed in this paper. The social dilemma problem While there is a degree of natural self-interest in human nature, social behaviour is also influenced by how social situations are organised. Some settings can foster self-interest and the maximisation of individual welfare; others situations may foster a degree of altruism. Watkins notes that there are two main sources of motivation for students: intrinsic and extrinsic (Watkins 2004). The former refers to altruistic behaviour which results from a selfless commitment to others, or a genuine interest in, and willingness to engage in a given task. This kind of motivation is quite different from motivation resulting from the aim to maximise ones self-interest. Extrinsic motivation results from external incentives such as assessment marks and falls under the second category. Clearly, in groupwork there is a clash of internal and external motivations. The more powerful motivation is for students to maximise their self-interest and to obtain high grades at the expense of others in the group. The dilemma in setting groupwork tasks for students is how to foster intrinsic motivation while allowing for the understandable and natural influence of extrinsic motivations (Watkins 2004). (pp566-569) Recommendations for recognition of effort 1. Work out ways to recognise, monitor and reward the individual effort of group members. Simply tracking the contributions of students work and requesting that students names be given on a group assignment might be sufficient. This can either be a matter of negotiation among students themselves or mandated by the instructor. 2. As already noted, evaluate the individuals contribution to the groupwork assignment as well as the work of group. 3. Allow group members to notice and evaluate each others contributions by means such as web-based tools or a peer evaluation procedure. 4. An effective assessment procedure that has been trialled in a cross-disciplinary business course is summarised below (Brooks and Ammons 2003). The authors claim that such a procedure reduces free riding as measured by a decline of variance between peer evaluation assessments. (It was not clear from this paper whether groups were self-selected or instructor selected. The second variation, given below, involved selfselected groups.) Assessment procedure for groupwork I a. An evaluation pack is distributed containing instructions for the groupwork task, and an assessment sheet template which is completed anonymously by all students about their group members (a self-evaluation is also completed). Responses were typed to ensure anonymity. b. Numerical scores are given. Each student has 100 points to allocate on each team member (i.e., in a group with 4 individuals there are 400 points to spend in total on their group members). Group members can receive more than 100 points if they did more than their fair share of work (or less, if they did not do their fair share). c. Peer evaluation was held every 4 weeks. Thus 4 evaluations were done in total from each group member. d. Evaluations were placed in a sealed envelope and handed to the instructor at the end of semester. e. Points were totalled and averaged for each individual. f. Instructors grade was averaged according to the group average. g. Students are given their ratings from their group members as well as their instructors final grade (Brooks and Ammons 2003). A similar procedure is used with the following variation at my own institution. Assessment procedure for groupwork II There is a oneoff peer evaluation (not every 4 weeks). Students allocate a percentage mark for each of their group members on an evaluation template. If the ranking of any one team member is significantly less than 90% a meeting is held between the group and the lecturer. A consensus is arrived at among the group as to the allocation of the marks.

12

This ensures that the marks for any individual is properly considered and not unfair, and also ensure no grudge is held by the lower-ranked group member (i.e., the members of the group have to make a convincing case for their ranking to the lower-ranked group member). A differentiated mark is arrived at by the lecturer in consideration of the marks awarded by group members. (pp 577-578) The full paper can be found at

http://tlu.fbe.unimelb.edu.au/pdfs/martinpubs/groupwork.pdf

A Selection of Group Work Rubrics

Group Presentation Rubric

Category 1 2 3 4 5

Organization/

Poise/ Appearance

Not organized; nervous tension obvious; inappropriate dress for type of audience

Somewhat organized; somewhat nervous; acceptable dress for type of audience

Few glitches in presentation, little evidence of nervous tension, acceptable dress for type of audience

Presentation flows smoothly; no real evidence of nervous tension; acceptable dress for type of audience

Presentation flows smoothly, handles audience professionally, dress for type of audience is exemplary

Vocals Monotone; not very audible

Somewhat monotone; Fluctuation in volume, weak enunciation

Audible for whole presentation, lacks some tone and inflection; acceptable enunciation

Volume, tone, inflection is appropriate for size of the audience; enunciation is acceptable

Volume, tone and inflection is appropriate and adds to the energy of the performance, enunciation is excellent

Creativity Lacks originality; format is dull; single sensory experience

Somewhat original; single sensory experience

Somewhat original; multi sensory experience

Very original; multi sensory experience

Exemplary evidence of originality, creates multi-sensory experience

Energy/

Atmosphere

Interest of audience is poor due to lack of presenters enthusiasm

Audience somewhat interested; due to minimal energy of presenters

Audience is generally attentive due to enthusiasm of presenters

Audience is attentive; enthusiasm of presenters is generally high

Enthusiastic; captivates audience

13

Persuasiveness

Fails to increase audience understanding of topic; fails to convince audience, sarcasm and humour is inappropriate for topic and audience

Raises audience understanding of some points; generally fails to convince audience; sarcasm and humour is inappropriate

Raises audience understanding of topic; lacks development or support of some points to convince audience; some sarcasm and humour inappropriate

Generally substantiates points made and raises audience understanding of topic; humour, sarcasm is appropriate

Effectively convinces audience of its point of view; humor and sarcasm is effectively used; increases audience understanding of topic

Visuals Only 1 medium used; lacks colour; visibility to audience is limited

2 mediums used that use little colour; somewhat visible for parts of audience

Use of 3 mediums that use little colour; visible for much of the audience

Somewhat colourful; at least 3 mediums evident, good audience visibility

Colourful; at least 3 mediums evident; complete audience visibility

Collaborative

Involvement

Focus of the presentation is on one group member only

Less than half the group is active in the presentation and use only 1 speaker

Majority of the group is active in the presentation and uses 2 speakers

Most group members have an active role in participation and use at least 3 speakers

All group members are active in presentation and use at least 3 speakers

Content

Subject not clearly defined; less than adequate content coverage in most categories

Content is somewhat sketchy; covers about half of the content categories adequately

Some details are contradictory; covers most of the categories adequately

Information generally consistent; covers all required content areas adequately

Subject clearly defined; covered all required content areas in depth

Bibliography Evidence of 2-3 sources;

1 medium

Use of 4-5 sources;

2 mediums

Use of 6-7 sources;

3 mediums

Use of 8-9 sources;

4 mediums

Minimum of 10 sources;

4 mediums

FCSC 4113: Consumer Issues: Assessment of Individual Group Members' Contributions Consumer Issue Analysis Project Rubric II

CRITERIA (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)

Attendance at group mtgs. &

Attended all meetings, arrived on time & participated

Attended most group mtgs. &/or was

Attended half the group mtgs. &/or was present

Attended about half the group mtgs. &/or

Attended very few or no group mtgs. w/ little or no

14

participation fully sometimes late or left early; contacted a group member if going to be late or unable to attend; participated most of the time or made up for absence w/ alternate contributions to the group project

for only part of the meetings; participated partially when in attendance

was present for only part of the meetings; participated to a minimum degree when in attendance

participation

Willingness to make contribution to group task/goal

Willingly took on a proportional share of the project work & facilitation of clarity & equity of task responsibilities, successful completion of group's task

Reluctantly willing to accept a share of the project work & facilitate group work to successful completion

Unwilling to take on responsibility for either group work or facilitation of the group

Being reflective of self, group and group process

Willing & able to reflectively critique strengths & weak- nesses of self & group work during & after completion to improve the quality of own & group's work; took responsibility for own mistakes & feelings, asked for help when needed;

Reluctantly willing &/or adequate in identifying strengths & weaknesses of self & group during project development or after its completion

Unwilling &/or unable to identify own strength & weaknesses or those of the group at any point in time

15

depersonalized issues/ problems in relation to self & others; openly, honestly, & respectful- ly interacted w/ group members & others; worked to resolve problems

Following through on commitments

Completed all the work agreed to do

Only partially completed work agreed to do

Did not complete work agreed to do

Thoroughness in carrying out commitments

Completed agreed-upon tasks thoroughly & uphold a standard of excellence.

Adequately completed tasks agreed to do

Insufficient standard of quality for the work completed

Takes responsibility for part of the writing of paper

Took proportional responsibility for synthesizing individual contributions into a coherent written report

Took some responsibility for synthesizing individual contributions into a written group report

Did not contribute to synthesis of individual contributions into written group report

Takes proportional responsibility for the group presentation & its preparation

Took proportional responsibility for synthesizing individual contributions into a coherent oral presentation

Took some responsibility for synthesizing individual contributions into a oral group presentation

Did not contribute to synthesis of individual contributions into oral group presentation

FCSC 4113: Consumer Issues: Assessment of Individual Group Members' Contributions Consumer Issue Analysis Project Rubric II

16

Scorer's Name:________________________________________________________________ (20% of grade)

Issue:_____________________________________________________________________________

Group Members:_________________________________________________________________________

CRITERIA INDIVIDUAL GROUP MEMBERS' NAMES & RATINGS

Names of all group members SELF

Attendance at group meetings & participation

Willingness to make proportional contribution group task/goal

Reflective of self, group, & group process; took responsibility for own mistakes & feelings; asked for help when needed; depersonalized issues/problems; openly, honestly, & respectfully interacted w/ others

Following through on commitments

Thoroughness in carrying out commitments

Takes responsibility for part of the writing

Takes proportional responsibility for the group presentation & its preparation

COMMENTS ON EACH PERSON'S SCORE:

TOTAL SCORE FOR EACH GROUP MEMBER

17

Professor evaluates the assessment on the criterion below.

Honesty & Openness in Assessment

Recognizes & assesses strengths & weaknesses accurately

Doesn't seem to be differentiate between strengths & weaknesses

Really seems out of touch with performance in presentation

Assessment #1: individual contribution to team process and plan development

LB5218 - Business Plan: assessment #1, individual contribution to team process and outcomes

What is assessed

HD D C P W Marks

available Grade earned

Evid

ence

will

be

asce

rtai

ned

from

tea

m b

log,

em

ails

and

oth

er c

omm

unic

atio

ns

Exercise appropriate leadership including recognising and valuing diversity and working effectively in a team

You encourage and lead your

colleagues, finding ways to

deploy the skills of each

individual where they are

best used

You encourage your

colleagues, recognising that each

individual has different skills

You work with all your

colleagues reasonably well

You demonstrate difficulty in

working with colleagues, and

have little patience for the different

skills of individual team

members

No evidence of leadership in this project was evident, and you did

not work well with your colleagues

5

Demonstrate high level personal autonomy and accountability in planning, execution, communication and evaluation of research and other inputs

Your individual contributions

were high quality and complete,

submitted on time or early

and in excellent usable format

Your individual contributions

were good quality and

mostly complete,

submitted on time or early and required

minimal editing to be usable

Your individual contributions

were sound but could be

improved and mostly

complete, submitted on time or only a little late, but required some editing to be

usable

Your individual contributions

were incomplete and

of fairly poor quality,

submitted mostly late,

and requiring significant

editing to be usable

Your individual

contributions were

incomplete and of poor

quality, submitted late, and requiring significant

editing, re-writing, and

further research and work to be

usable

25

Not

e: th

ese

will

be

evid

ence

d by

the

team

pro

cess

rec

ords

incl

uded

in th

is

subj

ect g

uide

- fa

ilure

to m

ain

tain

and

subm

it t

hese

rec

ords

will

res

ult

in a

mar

k

of Z

ERO

Demonstrate ability to work as part of a team and manage team inputs and processes to achieve a coordinated outcome

Your colleagues rank your

performance as outstanding. You were an active team player and

strongly supported

them and the whole team in

Your colleagues rank your

performance as very good. You

were a team player and supported

them and the whole team in achieving its

Your colleagues rank your

performance as sound. You

were mostly a good team

player but on occasion let

them down a somewhat

Your colleagues rank your

performance as patchy and in some cases

poor. You are not yet a strong

team player and on

occasion let them down

Your colleagues rank your

performance as poor. They

do not consider you to be a team player and

point to the fact that you

10

18

achieving its goals

goals significantly let them down significantly and often

Contribute to the writing of a sound business plan

Significant evidence of individual contribution to writing the plan, combined with activities in integrating various contributions, making suggestions for improvements and generally adding value to the writing process

Good evidence of individual contribution to writing the plan, combined with activities in integrating various contributions, making suggestions for improvements and adding some value to the writing process

Some evidence of individual contribution to writing the plan, limited involvement in integrating various contributions, and a few suggestions for improvements

Limited evidence of individual contribution to writing the plan, limited or no involvement in integrating various contributions, and few suggestions for improvements

No evidence of individual contribution to writing the plan

10

Base

d on

obs

erva

tion

s by

lect

urer

in c

lass

Contribute meaningfully to discussions at class sessions and presentations, share knowledge and resources with colleagues

Participated well in class sessions, offering relevant comment and sharing resources, as well as listening to colleagues respectfully

Participated somewhat in class sessions, offering some relevant comment and/or sharing some resources, listening adequately

Limited relevant contribution. Not permitting colleagues to participate, and/or not listening to colleagues

Little contribution, or contributions that were irrelevant. 'Hogging' the discussion and not permitting colleagues to participate, and/or not listening to colleagues

No meaningful contribution and/or did not attend some/all sessions.

10

Areas to consider in developing assessment and rubrics

level of enthusiasm and participation organisation of the team and ensured things were completed in a timely manner suggested ideas and contributed to finding solutions to problems demonstrated leadership ability to be a good team member (reliable, met required deadlines, attended group

meetings, punctual)

Different Roles in the group: ideas person, big picture person, details person, technical person, Communications person (ability to prepare and give presentations)

ability to follow instructions exercise judgement to decide what to include in the report perform tasks efficiently help to manage team conflict and resolve disagreements provide constructive feedback to team members contributed to the quality control of the presentation; information correct, editing,

grammar, spellchecking, format

19

percentage of contribution to the whole project the end product is

Backwards Design - Planning from the assessment to the task

If we know what we want at the end of the learning activity then we should design the assessment instruments to guide students to achieve the learning outcomes

Team selection

Belbin Team Role Theory (a contested theory)

http://www.belbin.com/rte.asp?id=8

Ever wondered why some teams just seem to work and others hit the rocks? When things dont work, it is obvious to all and it often has a profound effect on the people involved, as well as the project or objective to be achieved. In the 1970s, Dr Meredith Belbin and his research team at Henley Management College set about observing teams, with a view to finding out where and how these differences come about. They wanted to control the dynamics of teams to discover if and how problems could be pre-empted and avoided. As the research progressed, the research revealed that the difference between success and failure for a team was not dependent on factors such as intellect, but more on behaviour. The research team began to identify separate clusters of behaviour, each of which formed distinct team contributions or Team Roles. A Team Role came to be defined as: A tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way. It was found that different individuals displayed different Team Roles to varying degrees.

Shaper Highly motivated with a lot of nervous energy and a great need for achievement. Like to challenge lead and push others to action, can be headstrong and emotional in response to disappointment or frustration. Generally make good managers because they generate action and thrive on pressure.

Plant Innovators and inventors can be highly creative. Often enjoy working on their own away from other members of the team. Tend to be introvert and react strongly to criticism and praise. Great for generating new proposals and to solve complex problems.

Co-ordinator Ability to pull a group together to work towards a shared goal. Mature, trusting, and confident they delegate readily. They stay calm under pressure. Quick to spot an individuals talents and use them to pursue group objectives. Co-ordinators are useful to have in charge of a team with their diverse skills and personal characteristics.

Monitor Evaluator

Serious-minded, prudent individuals. Slow deciders who prefer to think things over usually highly critical thinking ability. Usually make shrewd judgements by taking into account all the factors. Important when analysing problems and evaluating ideas and suggestions.

Resource investigator

Good communicators both with other members of the group and with external organisations.

20

Natural negotiators, adept at exploring new opportunities. Adept at finding out what resources are available and what can be done. Relaxed personalities with strong inquisitive sense and a readiness to see the possibilities of anything new. Very good for finding resources and heading negotiations

Implementer Well organised, enjoy routine and have a practical common-sense and self discipline. Systematic approach to tackling problems Reliable and hardworking. Will do what needs to be done whether or not they will enjoy the task.

Team worker Supportive members of the team. Flexible and adaptable to different situations and people. Perceptive and diplomatic. Good listeners Avoid conflict Good at allowing everyone in the group to contribute.

Completer- Finisher

Have a great capacity for follow-through and attention to detail, and seldom start what they cannot finish. Dislike carelessness Reluctant to delegate, they prefer to tackle tasks themselves. Good at tasks that involve close concentration and a close degree of accuracy.

Specialist Pride themselves on acquiring technical skills and specialist knowledge. Priorities are to maintain professional standards and advance their own subject. Very committed. Important in providing the technical expertise and are usually called upon to make decisions involving in depth experience and expertise.

R Meredith Belbin, Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail (Butterworth Heinemann, 2nd ed., 2004) ISBN: 0 7506 5910 6 Balance is key

Whilst some Team Roles were more high profile and some team members shouted more loudly than others, each of the behaviours was essential in getting the team successfully from start to finish. The key was balance. For example, Meredith Belbin found that a team with no Plant struggled to come up with the initial spark of an idea with which to push forward. However, once too many Plants were in the team, bad ideas concealed good ones and non-starters were given too much airtime. Similarly, with no Shaper, the team ambled along without drive and direction, missing deadlines. With too many Shapers, in-fighting began and morale was lowered.

Strengths and allowable weaknesses

As well as the strength or contribution they provided, each Team Role was also found to have an allowable weakness: a flipside of the behavioural characteristics, which is allowable in the team because of the strength which goes with it. For example, the unorthodox Plant could be forgetful or scatty; or the Resource Investigator might forget to follow up on a lead. Co-ordinators might get over-enthusiastic on the delegation front and Implementers might be slow to relinquish their plans in favour of positive changes. Completer Finishers, often driven by anxiety to get things right, were found to take their perfectionism to extremes. Teamworkers, concerned with the welfare and morale of the team, found it difficult to make decisions where this morale might be compromised or team politics, involved. Shapers risked becoming aggressive and bad-humoured in their attempts to get things done.

21

Evaluating Belbins theory

Whilst Belbins theory has been contested by many academics there is something we can take from this research. Clearly every team or group will function effectively if the members recognise the range of duties and responsibilities they each need to manage. Differentiation of tasks requires that groups recognise what sorts of roles they may need to undertake in order to achieve the outcome. In many of our group projects we work with smaller sized groups, between 3 to 6 participants, this means that the students will need to recognise dual roles within the group and some of the synergies between Belbins nine categories can be factored into the project.

This also means that when we set up rubrics with generic group role expectations we may be missing some of the nuanced components of group work. This leads us to utilising self-assessment and peer assessment as additional measures in determining a grade for a student participate in group work.

Spark

Introduction

Welcome

Thank you for visiting the SparkPLUS web site. This web site is currently under construction and will be updated regularly. Please visit again to learn more about SparkPLUS, including additional detailed information about it's features and pedagogical rationale for it use.

About SparkPLUS

Group projects aren't fair is a frequent student response in higher education. Group work is used to facilitate peer learning and encourage students to develop collaboration, crucial graduate attributes. Since assessment strongly influences learning, any course objective to improve peer learning and/or collaboration must have assessment that promotes it.

Self and peer assessment is a valid solution for promoting these objectives and overcoming potential inequities of equal marks for unequal contributions. Group members are responsible for negotiating and managing the balance of contributions and then assessing whether the balance has been achieved.

Over the last decade our focus in using self and peer assessment has changed from making group work fairer (something it does automatically with careful implementation) to using it to produce formative learning-oriented feedback to complete the learning cycle and encourage the ongoing development of skills. More recently we have found self and peer assessment to be a valuable tool to produce learning oriented student centred assessments, facilitate collaborative peer learning and to develop monitor and track students attribute development.

SPARKPLUS is a web-based self and peer assessment kit. It enables students to confidentially rate their own and their peers' contributions to a team task or individual submissions.

SPARKPLUS not only enables students to confidentially rate their own and their peers' contributions to a team project, but also allows students to self and peer assess individual work and improve their judgment through benchmarking exercises. Being a criteria-based tool SPARKPLUS allows academics the flexibility to choose or create specifically targeted criteria to allow any task or attribute development to be assessed. In addition, SPARKPLUS facilitates the use of common categories, to

22

which academics link their chosen criteria, providing a means for both academics and students to track students development as they progress through their degree. SPARKPLUS automates data collection, collation, calculation and distribution of feedback and results.

SPARKPLUS can produce three assessment factors:

1. The Self and Peer Assessment (SPA) factor is a weighting factor determined by both the self and peer rating of a students contribution. It is typically used to change a team mark for an assessment task into an individual mark as shown below: Individual mark = team mark * Individuals SPA

2. The Self Assessment to Peer Assessment (SAPA) factor. This is the ratio of a students own rating of themselves compared to the average rating of their contribution by their peers. The SAPA factor has strong feedback value for development of critical reflection and evaluation skills eg, a SAPA factor greater than 1 means that a student has rated their own performance higher than the average rating they received from their peers and vice versa.

3. The third factor is a percentage mark, the calculation of which depends on the type of task that has been selected (e.g. benchmarking exercise or marking individual work).

In addition, SPARKPLUS allows students to provide anonymous written feedback to their peers and provides a number of options for graphically reporting results.

The factors produced by SPARKPLUS are used to change group marks to individual marks. Without this automation, academics with large classes simply could not consider self and peer assessment.

As with all educational technology the essential caveat applies: Careful and thoughtful integration of student-centred tasks is vital for success!

Extract from Freeman and McKenzie (2002) Improving Teamwork and Engagement: The case for self and peer assessment. www.aaee.com.au/journal/2006/willey0106.pdf

Group and team work are commonly used in higher education to facilitate peer learning and encourage students to develop their capacity to work as part of a team. There seems little argument about the value of teamwork, but its assessment has proved considerably more problematic (Conway, Kember, Sivan & Wu, 1993; Lejk, Wyvill & Farrow, 1996). One author has likened group assessment to a game, maintaining that the rules of the game advantage some students and disadvantage others, and that factors such as teamwork and contribution to a team are essentially impossible to assess fairly (Pitt, 2000, p. 240). However, assessment strongly influences students learning (Ramsden, 1992; Biggs, 1999). If courses include objectives about students capacity to work as part of a team, and we value peer learning then we need some means of assessing teamwork in a fair and meaningful way which promotes peer collaboration (Sampson, Cohen, Boud and Anderson, 1999).

Peer assessment of individuals contributions to assessed teamwork isn't a new idea, although the addition of self assessment is relatively innovative. While there is some debate about the inclusion of self assessment (Lejk et al 1996), we believe it encourages students to reflect on their own contributions and capabilities. In fact, Boud, Cohen and Sampson (1999) favour self-assessment informed by peer feedback on specific criteria, in preference to peer assessment per se.

SPARK was intended to have benefits for both students and staff. It was intended to encourage students to negotiate the way they will work in the team to achieve the best task result with equal contributions by all students. Using self and peer assessment encourages students to develop the capacity to reflect on and evaluate their own and others contributions, develop awareness of their own strengths and needs as a team member and develop their teamwork skills. For staff, the intention was that they would gain satisfaction from seeing improvements in learning and have fewer problems with complaints about the fairness of team based assessment tasks.

23

SPARK is based on a well-designed and evaluated paper-based peer assessment system in which students rated each other's contributions and the lecturer used the ratings to calculate adjustments to individual marks (Goldfinch 1994). While Goldfinch's system was reasonably effective in adjusting team marks to reflect individual contributions, it involved a series of time consuming calculations to generate adjustment factors. This created a disincentive for lecturers and delayed the provision of feedback to students, particularly in large classes.

The SPARK software deals with this problem by automating the processes of collecting the student assessments and completing the calculations. This was a major efficiency benefit, in addition to the learning benefits. Compared with paper-based systems SPARK was also intended to improve student confidentiality and reduce data entry and calculation errors.

A further intention was to enable dissemination. SPARK was created to be a relatively generic template which can be easily adapted to any learning context where group or team work and/or self and peer assessment are used.

SPARK automatically produces two weighting factors. The SPA or Self and Peer Assessment factor is a weighting factor that can be used to change a team mark for a project (stage) into an individual mark.

For example, if a teams project mark was 80 out of 100 and a team member receives a SPA factor of 0.9 , they would receive an individual mark of 72 to reflect a lower than average team contribution as perceived by a combination of themselves and their peers. Alternatively, if not used to moderate summative assessment the SPA factor can be used formatively to assist student development.

The second factor calculated is the SAPA or Self Assessment to Peer Assessment factor. It is the ratio of a students own rating of themselves compared to the average rating of their contribution by their peers. This has strong feedback value for future development both for self-critical reflection and peer evaluation.

It provides students with feedback about how the rest of the team perceives their contribution unsullied by their own opinion. For example, a SAPA factor greater than 1 means that a student has rated their own team performance higher than they were rated by their team peers. Conversely, a SAPA factor less than 1 means that a student has rated their own performance lower than they were rated by their peers. (p5)

Group projects aren't fair

Students common complaint o Equal marks for unequal contributions o 'Free-riders' known also as 'social loafers' and 'passengers' not penalised

24

o Better students inadequately rewarded and demotivated

Staff common concerns o Group work complaints evidenced in subject experience and satisfaction surveys at

local and national level o Staff dilemma of developing collaboration and peer learning without undesirable

side effects o Paper-based attempts in self and peer assessment unable to overcome

confidentiality concerns o Paper-based self and peer assessment impossible workload if large classes (i.e. huge

data collection, collation and calculations) o Innovations too risky in current resource-constrained environment unless generic,

easy and reliable

Software Functionality

Platform independent, web based software No client software needed apart from a standard web browser Data stored on MS SQL database Password protected with stratified privileges for students, instructors and administrators Easy-to-use simple interface Instructor Administrative tools allows moderation of marks, feedback saboteur detection Provides students with ability to enter, review and re-enter ratings and formulate teams Provides staff/instructors with ability to batch enrol students and/or teams, enter deadlines,

track progress on ratings and duplicate subjects Provides administrator with ability to create new instructor accounts and manage system

Stages of implementation

Overview

1. Academics determine if group learning and assessment tasks necessary to achieve learning outcomes

2. Academic identifies weighting for group assessment task and key assessment criteria for marking the group submission

3. Academic explains how group marks are adjusted into individual marks using SPARK and method for formulating groups

4. Academic develops assessment criteria and rating scale to be used calculating the adjustment factor, in collaboration with students and after considering past student feedback

5. Academic arranges for subject and student details to be entered into SPARK to enable online student access

6. Students, conscious of assessment criteria used in project/task and groupwork, work on group task culminating in submission of group project/task

7. Academic monitors groups during completion of group project/task 8. Students reflect on group process in completing task and rate all members of own team

including self against agreed criteria within a rating period 9. Academic collects and assesses group projects/tasks 10. Academic communicates group project mark to each group 11. Academics consults SPARK for adjustment factors and apply to group mark 12. Academic provides each individual student with summative feedback (i.e. the adjusted

individual mark) 13. Academic may provide each individual student with formative feedback 14. Student reflects on SPA and SAPA factor to decide how future behaviour may change to

improve collaboration, interpersonal and reflection capabilities 15. Academic evaluates effectiveness (eg. online surveys, focus groups, ones own reflection)

25

Step-by-Step for academics

1. Academic determines if group learning and assessment tasks necessary to achieve learning outcomes

2. Academic identifies weighting for group assessment project/task and key assessment criteria for marking the group submission

3. Academic explains how group marks are adjusted into individual marks using SPARK and method for formulating groups

4. Academic develops assessment criteria and rating scale to be used calculating the adjustment factor, in collaboration with students and after considering past student feedback

5. Academics arranges for subject and student details to be entered into SPARK to enable online student access

6. Academic monitors groups during completion of group task 7. Academic collects and assesses group projects/tasks 8. Academic communicates group project mark to each group 9. Academic consults SPARK for adjustment factors and applies to group mark 10. Academic provides each individual student with summative feedback (i.e. the adjusted

individual mark) 11. Academic may provide each individual student with formative feedback 12. Academic evaluates effectiveness

Step-by-Step for students

1. Students familiarise themselves with group assessed project/task and criteria academic has set for marking it

2. Students form groups in agreement with academic 3. Students agree assessment criteria used for rating self and peers 4. Each student familiarises themselves with SPARK 5. Students, conscious of assessment criteria used in project/task and groupwork, work on

group task culminating in submission of group project/task 6. Each student reflects on group process in completing project/task and rates all members of

own team including self against agreed criteria within a rating period. Review and resubmission possible until specified cutoff date and time.

7. Each student receives mark for group project 8. Each individual student receives adjusted individual mark as summative feedback based on

SPA factor 9. Each individual student receives adjusted formative feedback based on SAPA factor 10. Each reflects on SPA and SAPA factor to decide how future behaviour may change to

improve collaboration, interpersonal and reflection capabilities 11. Students participate in evaluation conducted by academic

26

How to Interpret Spark Factors

A sample SPARKPLUS results screen is shown in the figure above. The SPA factor of 0.91 indicates that overall this student performed below the average performance of their team (1 representing average performance) while the SAPA factor of 1.05 (close to 1) suggests that the student was aware of their underperformance. The triangle indicators for each criterion provide further feedback as to this students individual strengths and weaknesses. They show the criterion for which the student underrated their performance the most compared to the evaluation of their performance by their peers was helped to manage team conflict and resolve disagreements. Conversely the criterion for which the student overrated their performance the most compared to the evaluation of their performance by their peers was reliable, met required deadlines, attended group meetings, punctual. In this case since only one category of criteria was used the category and overall feedback factors (SPA and SAPA) are the same. The feedback comments from the students team peers are provided anonymously in the scroll down window.

27

How to Interpret Individuals Spark Radar Diagrams

The blue envelope in the radar diagrams represents the SAPA factors. When this envelope exceeds 1 it indicates that the student believes their contribution was higher than the average assessment they received from their team peers. The red envelope represents the SPA factors. When this envelope exceeds 1 students have contributed more than the average of their team peers.

The above radar diagram provides information about a students performance in terms of the three attribute categories. A quick look at the diagram shows that in the Engineering Ability category the student contributed the same as the average contribution of their team and the student's rating of their own performance agrees with the average rating they received from their team peers.

Conversely in the Knowledge Base and Professional Skills categories the student performed slightly below the average contribution of their team and the SAPA envelope shows they rated their own performance much higher than they were rated by their team peers.

The differences between a students assessment of their contribution compared to their peers assessment can be due to a number of factors including:

Their contribution has not been fairly assessed by their peers.

Their peers have not provided feedback to the student in regard to their performance and hence they are unaware of the differences between their self and their team peers perceptions.

The student may be aware of their true performance level but deliberately chose to inflate their ratings in an attempt to increase their overall mark.

28

The interpretation of the group radar diagram is similar to that of the individual radar diagram. Except in the case as above where students have marked individual submissions. In this case the SPA (red) envelope reports whether the quality of a student's individual submission was considered to be above or below the average of those marked by the group.

N.B. Consider the portfolio options with these radar diagrams, a student could show their ability to work as a team and understand how to improve performance via documented evidence.

29

Group Work General comments from Flinders University

Source: Flinders University http://www.flinders.edu.aulteach/teach/groupwork.htm Research has demonstrated that an important factor in student success in university studies is the opportunity for students to work in groups. While many academics would like to include group work, there is often hesitation because of bad experiences when groups have fallen apart and have failed to complete the tasks or left the work to one or a few students who have felt badly put upon. There are many advantages to including some group work in the assessment design, but if included, it must be thoughtfully managed.

Benefits in Using Group Work: When students have to explain and negotiate their contributions to a group project, it assists them in developing and increasing their meta-cognitive awareness. That is, in 'low risk' contexts they begin to know what they know and know what they have yet to learn or find out. Group projects provide opportunities for developing generic skills such as:

organisation, negotiation, delegation, team work, co-operation, leadership, following

These skills are not automatically picked up but are skills that must be explicitly taught and critically evaluated just like essay writing, and critical reading

Group work is useful for encouraging social interaction for isolated, rural and overseas students

Group work can be a means for acknowledging and utilising individual students' additional strengths and expertise

With a small group of students exploring a topic in a limited time frame, there are opportunities for their collaborative product of their studies to go to greater depth and breadth

Group work can be used for real world work on authentic real world projects Group work can be used to provide opportunities to work in multidisciplinary teams as

learning communities exploring specific themes or issues. Large group projects provide a legitimate vehicle for making assessment a central aspect of a

topic Group assessment is more public and accountable for its intentions and judgments. If the student learning output is a group effort it will reduce the assessment workload by a

factor of the number in the groups and thus can be a more efficient means of assessing. However, although the interpreting a grading aspect may be reduced the management and guidance demands may well be higher than it is for individual projects or papers.

"Group Think": Some groups malfunction when the preservation of the group becomes more important than the task at hand or the ideas.

Creation of "team players": not being a team player means dissenting from the group identity. Independent thinkers are not popular in a group environment

When to Use Groupwork As suggested by Gary Poole, visiting AUTC scholar 2001 : When quality is more important than efficiency Groupwork can be inefficient. It should be used to improve the quality of student product. When the total amount of information processed or generated is more important than ideas. Using techniques such as group brainstorming can reduce the number of ideas generated as students discuss the ideas rather than come up with new ideas. When the task lends itself to a division of labour

30

Setting Up Teams Assign groups

Allocate students to groups rather than allowing them to pick groups themselves. Base your assignments on your identification of high and low contributors as evident in previous meetings

Artificially place groups into smaller sub-groups mixing gender, age, culture in order to force interaction if none is occurring

Keep to smaller numbers. An eight member team is too large for effective project management

and allows some members to "disappear" Roles Either assign specific roles or allow students to choose. Ensure that all group members are sure what their roles in the group are. Possible roles include:

Note taker Chair Change teams from time to time

Strategies That Enhance Effective Group Assignments Initial training

Set ground rules for being in a group. Allow students to establish the obligations of accountability.

Make the group the first line of resolving group problems, and the lecturer/tutor the final resort. Any

problems with the group must be raised in consultation by the group as a whole. Shift the onus on group

Discourage anonymity by limiting size of groups. Ask for progress reports early on including the functioning of the group. Use a group

evaluation form. Make the feedback public in the group. Allow in class time for group meetings and planning and make yourself accessible to groups. Design formative assessment on both the work itself AND the group work. Allow for the time required to make groups work As a rule, assign students to groups rather than allowing them to self select. Share the final products of the group work with the entire class and invite critique. Encourage disagreement within group discussions as a tool to foster creativity. Vary the products of group work

o Presentations with clearly defined rules and criteria including the insistence that a presentation must engage the audience.

o Poster Presentations o Individual follow up assessments o Process analysis in that the process of the groupwork is assigned a grade. Make effective

group o interaction and co-operation a criteria in grading

Benefits of Groupwork An important factor in student success in university studies is opportunities for students to work in groups. While many academics would like to include group work, they often hesitate because of bad experiences when groups fall apart and fail to complete the tasks or leave the work to one or a few students who then feel badly put upon.

There are many advantages to including some group work in the assessment design, but it must be thoughtfully managed.

31

Increase in metacognitive awareness

When students have to explain and negotiate their contributions to a group project it can assist them to develop and increase their metacognitive awareness. That is, in low risk contexts they begin to know what they know and know what they have yet to learn or find out.

Development of generic skills

Group projects can provide opportunities for developing generic skills such as: organisation, negotiation delegation, team work, co-operation, leadership, following etc. However, students don't automatically pick these up through being involved in a group project, these skills that must be explicitly taught and critically evaluated. Students need to be explicitly aware of such skills to intentionally develop them and to include them in their personal attributes in job applications.

Development of social networks and relationships

A distinguishing feature of the history of successful university students is that they have strong social/learning networks with other students. Group work is useful for encouraging social interaction for new students who might be isolated; especially for shy, rural and overseas students.

Development and contribution of individual capabilities

Group work can be a means for acknowledging and utilising the strengths and expertise of individual students. They can contribute their unique capabilities in completing a group project or performance.

Greater depth and breadth in final products

When a small group of students explores a topic in a limited time frame there are opportunities for their collaborative efforts and the products of their studies can go to greater depth and breadth than if they work individually.

Authentic approach to learning

Learning and production of projects in the real world rarely requires individual effort. While individuals may have specific responsibilities most projects and enterprises require marshalling a mix of expertise and responsibilities. Group work in university projects can be used for real world work on authentic real world projects and to harness opportunities to work in multidisciplinary teams as learning communities exploring specific themes or issues.

32

Phil Race Chapter 4 Making small-group teaching work

http://phil-race.co.uk/downloads/

Intended outcomes of this Chapter

When youve thought through the suggestions included in this Chapter (and tried out the most relevant ones) you should be better-able to:

Confronted some of the behaviours (student ones and tutor ones) which can reduce the success of small-group work;

Decide the optimum size of student groups for particular collaborative tasks you set; Choose the best way to establish the group membership for your purposes; Select from a range of processes such as rounds, buzz-groups, syndicates, snowballing,

fishbowls, crossovers, brainstorming and pair-dialogues, to help your students to learn productively and actively in small-group environments.

Why is small group learning so important?

My aim in this chapter is to help colleagues increase the interest and diversity of the processes used in small-group work with students. A common theme running throughout this chapter is the need to help students to participate fully in small-group situations, so that the learning payoff they derive from such occasions is maximised.

Small-group learning may be more important than we think. When most people think about teaching in universities and colleges, the image that frequently comes to mind is of a large lecture theatre full of students listening intently (or not) to a lecturer in full spate of erudition. Actually, a large proportion of the most meaningful learning in higher education happens when students are working in small groups, in seminars, tutorials, practicals and laboratories. Moreover, even more learning can be happening in small group situations beyond timetabled sessions, where students interact spontaneously with each other, and learn from each other. With increasing pressure on us all to deliver the curriculum in ever more efficient and effective ways, the means by which we manage small group teaching, and harness the potential learning payoff, come under close scrutiny. This chapter is intended to help you to explore how we can do this to best effect.

Group learning is about getting people to work together well, in carefully set up learning environments. The human species has evolved on the basis of group learning. Learning from other people is the most instinctive and natural of all the learning contexts we experience, and starts from birth. Although learning can only be done by the learner, and cant be done to the learner, the roles of other people in accelerating and modifying that learning are vitally important. Other people can enhance the quality of our learning, and can also damage it. But which other people?

We hear much of collaborative learning, as if its the most natural activity in the world. But it often seems like the least natural, particularly amongst strangers. Sociological research tells us repeatedly that it is human nature not to be involved with people we dont know. We might make a mistake, or look stupid, or be attacked. We will, however, get involved with people we do know. Well help them with their problems and even defend them. One key to working and learning with other people is, therefore, the ability to lower barriers and become friends with would-be strangers, while acknowledging differences and respecting different viewpoints.

Furthermore, much is now said about transferable skills, or key skills, particularly including oral communication skills, problem-solving skills, self-organisation skills, and reflection. Many of these

33

skills can only be learned from, and with, other people, and cannot be developed solely by reading and studying what others have written about them. It is now increasingly accepted that the most important outcomes of education and training are about developing people, and not just what people know or understand. Employers and managers plead for employees who are able to work well with others, and organise themselves. Working in small groups can allow students to embrace a range of interactive and collaborative skills which are often hard to develop in individual study situations, and impossible to develop in large-group environments such as lectures. The small group skills are precisely those required in employment and research, where graduates need to be able to:

work in teams, listen to others ideas sympathetically and critically, think creatively and originally, build on others existing work, collaborate on projects, manage time and processes effectively, see projects through to a conclusion, cope with the normal difficulties of interactions between human beings.

The last of these may be the most important of all. Learning in groups allows students to develop cohesion with their peers, when classes are becoming so large as to preclude feelings of whole group