When educators introduce a group assessment with: “We know you’ll hate this, but…” and among themselves colleagues’ attitudes range from: “Oh good, you’re going to stop doing group assessment – everyone hates it!” to “It’s essential to my modules and key to preparing my students for industry”, it’s no wonder effective group assessment seems elusive.
However, alternative and authentic assessment are increasingly seen as a foil to advancing technology, as institutions work to remain relevant and impactful in a rapidly changing landscape. Group assessment as an element of this is not new, and nor are the challenges around its authenticity or effectiveness.
So, what are the reasons for this persistent mixed reception, and what can we do about it?
In Edinburgh Napier University’s Business School, students have fed back to us that how group assessment (as distinct from classroom group activity) is framed can significantly impact how they perceive and engage with it (see above). This can be explicit (presented as a necessary evil) or implicit (peer assessment being used as part of an assignment).
- Using the ‘36 questions to fall in love’ to revolutionise group work
- Making group work work: how to enable successful student collaboration
- Moving from individual contributions to team achievements in group projects
Conversations with colleagues at an internal academic event also revealed a wide spectrum of opinion, and the passion with which they were stated told us that clearly there was something more to work on here.
So, we conducted a small pilot study asking our academic colleagues how they perceive group assessment, and how they think others (educators and students) perceive it. We were interested in the distinction between how much people value group assessment, how much they enjoy it, and the extent to which they engage with it. We also asked about pros and cons of group assessment, and what they thought could enhance it.
Early findings suggest that, regardless of the level at which they delivered group assessment, colleagues consistently rated engagement higher than value, and value higher than enjoyment. This was true whether they were talking about students, fellow educators or themselves. Colleagues also consistently rated themselves higher than their peers with respect to engagement, value and enjoyment.
When considering pros and cons, and suggestions for enhancement, there was more variation according to year of study; for example, the way students are perceived to value group assessment if you are pitching it to first or fourth years. Many respondents, however, said that navigating perceived inequity was a challenge. These voices became louder when it came to assessments that could impact degree classification. One respondent put it this way: the biggest benefit of group assessment is that someone else does the work, but the biggest disbenefit of group assessment is that someone else does the work.
Gaps also appear between how people talk about group assessment to their students and how they discuss it with colleagues, and in this there is a fundamental paradox. If we are honest about the learning outcomes of group assessment, we admit that learning to navigate the challenges of group work is one of the main pedagogical drivers of group assessment itself.
How can we reframe this fundamental paradox when it comes to introducing and supporting group assessment?
Perhaps the real challenge here is an old one, seen anew from this perspective: how can we practically help students understand that things aren’t always black and white? Group assessment is challenging, but that is what makes it valuable. How can we say this without inadvertently framing it in a negative way?
Here are four easy steps to get started:
Step 1: Name the output, not the instrument
The term “group assessment” is ambiguous, which does little to calm nervous students. Try giving it a different name, such as “collaborative presentation”, “co-authored paper” or even “advertising campaign” to help students focus on learning outcomes (and how they are linked to future practice) rather than the structure of assessment.
Step 2: Describe the journey as part of the learning
One of the challenges of group work is if students focus on the product of their work at the expense of the learning in its creation. Mitigate for this by taking the time to tell the story of how group outputs with consequences are part of the professional collaborative process. For example, describe how an advertising campaign in the workplace is a product of a team working together. Describing the process helps students to connect with the reason for studying this field.
Step 3: Structure groups intentionally from the outset
Often problems at the end of the journey are there from the beginning. Don’t experiment carelessly with ways of setting up groups. You might use self-selecting groups, assign by ability, via a psychometric or even randomly. Think of the logistics (do groups have to align to tutorials or timetabling?), consider diversity (assigning students randomly might feel “fair” but there are other things to think about) and, above all, the reason for the learning (if the task is focused on improving communication skills, self-selecting groups are unlikely to enable this). All these have pros and cons, and the choices you make at this stage could impact group performance and student learning.
Step 4: Everything in moderation
Many people think group assessment is “unfair” – and in a way, it is; there is a distinction between equity and equality here. Use structured peer assessment/moderation tools to amplify the student voice. This gives students insights into their own strengths, weaknesses and areas for development, thereby encouraging them to critically engage with the purpose of group assessment itself.
In the face of accelerating change, we have a responsibility to prepare our students to work with each other authentically. Students take their cues from us in forming their experience, so we must be mindful too about our framing. “I know you won’t like this, but…” is arguably doing them a disservice, as is playing down the very real challenges involved. While not universally suitable, group assessment is a powerful tool to engage the student holistically (even if not always enjoyably) in an experience that they value, and that prepares them for their professional lives.
Sarah Sholl is a lecturer and Stephen Yorkstone is a business improvement consultant, both at Edinburgh Napier University.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment