Individual
Group
Assessed
Not assessed
Maybe assessed
Where students are involved in collaborative group work, the assessment thereof is wholly part of their learning. Studies have considered how cooperative learning helps students develop social and interpersonal skills. Experts have argued that the social and psychological effect on self-esteem and personal development form part of student learning.For this reason it is important to conceptualise an assessment plan with care and to prepare students for the different aspects of the assessment process.
Depending on the nature and purpose of a group task, the associated assessment procedures could be quite involved and extensive. Some factors have to be considered, considering that a product and a process could potentially be assessed. Will the final product be delivered by the group or the individual at the end of the collaborative process? Will only certain aspects of the product be assessed? Will the collaborative process itself be assessed? How and by whom? Will individual contributions to group dynamics be assessed separately? What weightings will be allocated for each aspect in calculating the final mark for the task?
To answer the above questions, the following framework could be used as a guide. The framework considers both product and process and how individual students and the group as a whole would contribute to both. The links between these different aspects are displayed in four quadrants. In each of these four quadrants, there are guiding questions to be reflected upon and answered to devise a well-thought-through assessment plan for assessing cooperative and collaborative tasks.
A framework for assessing group tasks
The four quadrants in the table below represent the following dimensions of group tasks:
In each quadrant, a few guiding questions are provided to determine the nature of the group task according to the above dimensions.
| Legend | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Contribution | Individual |
Group |
|
| Assessment | Assessed |
Not assessed |
Maybe assessed |
 |
|
 |
|
| Figure 1: A framework for asssessing group tasks |
The above framework correlates with another framework which had been developed by the University College Dublin in Ireland. Their framework and explanation can be found here.
For further clarification, the above framework is applied to three different assessment scenarios below. Following a brief description of each scenario, an abbreviated representation of the nature of the related group tasks is depicted.
Scenario 1: Information Systems Development (INF 370) project assessment
Lecturers: Prof Marié Hattingh and Dr Ridewaan Hanslo (Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria)
The excerpt below is taken from the module study guide for 2022 (with permission).
Project outline
Students are expected to analyse, design, test and implement a Business Information System focused on essential business processes for a 'real-life' user as part of a self-selected project team consisting of five members.
Assessment of the product and product presentation
The assessment of the group product centres on the assessment of several (11) different iterations of the Business Information System (and related documentation developed by the group) against clearly defined criteria available in the study guide and on clickUP. These iterations carry different weightings concerning the final mark and are graded using rubrics. Marks per iteration will be allocated to the team as a whole.
Although not allocated individual marks, each group member's responsibility is considered when allocating the group mark. Although teams can allocate specific work to different team members, all members must understand all aspects of the system at all design and development stages. This includes that every team member must participate in the presentation and discussion of every iteration's assessment session. During group presentations, every team member has to present an equal part of the presentation. At the end of iteration 10a – the final tested system - the lecturers will test the system, ask questions, clarify issues, and ensure each team member's functional and technical competence.
Project and group management
Throughout the process, groups should apply sound project management principles to be successful. This includes thorough planning of milestones and timeframes for deliverables. It also entails planning and recording meetings (dates, times and attendance), as well as monitoring and recording individual team members' performance (i.e. whether members completed tasks on time and at the required standard). The number of meetings (between team members and team members with the client), and the dates and times on which the meetings were held, must also be planned and the actual attendance recorded. All of these are to be available in a project management file, which lecturers will use to make decisions to solve the problem or to determine further action to be taken.
Team peer review
This module heavily relies on teamwork, as our graduates would be required to work in teams in the industry. However, as indicated previously, it is also important that all team members contribute equally to completing each deliverable. Therefore, all team members must show competence in each module outcome. A peer review will be conducted for each iteration where team member contributions are reported. The objective is to identify early on to what extent all team members contribute to the completion of the iteration. Teamwork is a skill that needs to be developed; therefore, the idea is not to penalise team members for "small mistakes". However, the peer review system ensures that deserving students complete the module successfully.
Team members peer review each other based on their contribution for EACH iteration. Peer reviews ensure that EACH team member contributes to each iteration. To peer review, each team member will award every other team member (including themselves) a mark out of 20. The iteration mark (the mark awarded to the team during the marking session) will then be weighted accordingly. The expectation (and ideal outcome) is for all team members to contribute equally and receive a peer review of 20/20. However, by their admission, some team members acknowledged that their commitment to the iteration was not 100%. In those instances, the team must communicate with one another. These discussions and the team’s expectations of managing the underperforming team member(s) should be documented.
Based on the team member's contribution, iteration marks will be re-distributed to accurately reflect team members' contributions. Contributions will be measured against not only the fact that the work assigned to the team member was completed but also include soft team skills such as attitude, communication ability, time management, conflict management, etc.
Individual members also assess themselves in terms of the above. But, unrealistic high scores (out of line with the scores of other members) will be cancelled and may lead to the member forfeiting the opportunity to peer review that iteration. They will then receive the average of the remaining peer reviews.
In case of inappropriate peer reviews, the module coordinator will have a team meeting with the group.
 |
|
 |
|
| Figure 2: Application of the group task assessment framework as used in the INF 370 module |
Scenario 2: The use of IF-AT cards for assessment in groups
IF-AT cards make team-based activities more enjoyable. The product allows students to receive immediate feedback that assesses their knowledge and understanding. After considering the answers to multiple-choice questions, they then scratch off a thin covering to reveal their desired answer choice. Click here for detailed information and steps on how to use the cards for group task assessment.
 |
|
 |
|
| Figure 3: Application of the group task assessment framework to use it for IF-AT cards |
Scenario 3: Mobile instant messaging (MIM) while taking a test
In an effort to provide a social constructive learning opportunity for students where they can develop their collaborative problem solving competence while being assessed individually, three lecturers in the Department of Accounting at the University of Pretoria incorporated mobile instant messaging (MIM) during assessments. The tool used, afforded students to message one another in the bigger class group - asking questions for clarification or guidance; providing guidance or sharing insight. This was applied to a range of assessments of different type and stake:
Taking part in the MIM collaboration was optional.
 |
|
 |
|
| Figure 4: Application of the group task assessment framework to use it for MIM |
In an article “Talking during a test?! Embracing mobile instant messaging during assessment”, Van Rensburg, Coetzee and Schmulian (2022) describe research conducted on the initiative.
More grading models and methods
Fitting the above framework, the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and Educational Innovation of the Carnegie Mellon University and the Centre for Teaching Excellence of the University of Waterloo describe the advantages and disadvantages of some grading models for group work. All of these can fit into the framework discussed above. You can access their grading models here:
Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and Educational Innovation, Carnegie Mellon University
Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo
Assessment of individual and group products
For product assessment (whether completed by an individual or a group), a set of relevant criteria defining the expected qualities of such a product will guide the assessment. This will differ from module to module and from assessment task to assessment task and will not be discussed in further detail here.
Peer assessment of team members
An article by Forsell, Forslund Frykedal and Hammar Chiriac (2019) 
provides a comprehensive literature review exploring and systematising research about group work assessment in educational settings. Key findings include peers' important role and the focal point of social skills in these assessments.
Peer assessment should ideally be viewed as a learning opportunity for students. According to Schwartz (n.d.) , the success of peer assessment schemes depends significantly on how the process is set up and subsequently managed. Several researchers propose that peer assessment should keep everybody in the picture and be simple and of high objectivity. Furthermore, peer assessment should have a moderation system (for example, 10% of the assessments being second marked by lecturers), have a complaint or review procedure, and some form of feedback to students.
Peer assessment can be problematic because students often find it hard to be objective about their performance, as they are aware that allotting scores to themselves or others will directly impact their marks. Also, a study by Devlin, Marshall and Phillips (2017) describing two different methods of peer assessment (one using team agreement and the other anonymous evaluation) shows that students are not comfortable with either of the two methods and that much more should still be done to make the benefits of this form of assessment clear to students. For this reason, peer assessment should not be the only form of allotting marks to students or giving feedback on performance. Instead, it should be one of the various methods of evaluating a team or an individual's performance. To further ensure objectivity, double/triple peer assessment is also possible where more than one student gives feedback on another student's work. It encourages students to consider different feedback. Students receive more detailed feedback because other students have additional knowledge and a different perspective to contribute (Daniels, 2019) .
Principles
The following principles for peer assessment should be kept in mind when including it in your module assessment plan (Daniels, 2019 ; University of Exeter, 2020 ):
Instruments (example rubrics) for teamwork evaluation and feedback
There are numerous sets of rubrics and criteria available that group members can use to evaluate and provide feedback to peers. Links to thoroughly researched rubrics are included below:
Assessment of group dynamics
Group dynamics is often overlooked as part of a group work assessment plan. In the same way that students should be prepared for group work before engaging in the required tasks and activities, continuous assessment of the groups' functioning and dynamics (i.e. debriefing and reflection) should occur throughout the process. The individual members' contributions to the group processes and product (often emphasised in group assessment plans) are enveloped in the group environment. A positive and safe group environment is more likely to ignite enthusiasm for the individual members to contribute to the full. The opposite is equally valid. The symbiotic relationship between individual contributions and group dynamics should not be underestimated.
In terms of assessment, it may be beneficial to assess groups on (amongst others) the quality of discussion in the group, the group climate, the adherence to group norms, staying on task and the achievement of milestones. Furthermore, praising groups for following standards and achieving goals is recommended. Whether done by the lecturer in a debriefing or by the group itself in the form of a group reflection, assessing the process motivates students to learn how to behave in groups. It shows students that meaningful group interactions and adhering to norms are valued.
Links on team functioning and dynamics:
. Available HERE.