How we talk about group assessment can be a critical enabler or restrictor to success. If we tell students that everybody hates it, we should not be surprised when they do, too. Our research has produced a framework to support those discussions. This was covered in our previous Campus article, where we focused on the architecture of group assessment: naming the output, describing the journey, structuring and moderation.
Even with the most robust framework, however, the best laid plans of mice and educators eventually collide with the messy reality of human dynamics. How can we deal with disruptions to group assessment, based on situation and timeline, so the whole thing doesn’t fall apart?
- Five considerations for effective group work
- Moving from individual contributions to team achievements in group projects
- Group work: improving communication, participation and dynamics
We have stress-tested these concepts through workshops with colleagues at Edinburgh Napier University. We found that although student dynamics can seem infinitely complex, patterns can be found, and the approaches that academics can take to solve group assessment challenges are logically limited. Crucially, these interventions are also bound to the academic calendar; for example, a solution that works in week three is often impossible by week nine.
The defined solution set
Educators can refine options to resolve conflict in group assessment to a restricted set of practical interventions; this will avoid paralysis because of choice. In our Approaches to Challenge framework, we identify four primary moves:
- Restructure: moving a student to a different group, or breaking a large group into smaller units, to allow group work to continue
- Removal: in more extreme cases (such as a total breakdown of trust within a group), removing an individual student from a group and having them complete the assessment separately, to maximise the chances of students successfully completing the module safely
- Peer involvement: using structured peer assessment or moderation tools to allow peers to contribute towards module marks or to promote accountability. This deepens student understanding of group assessment and modifies the psychological contract with the activity.
- Alternative assessment: a student undertakes a different, individual form of assessment to ensure they can still meet learning outcomes. This may be at the outset of the module or because of circumstances arising partway through.
The point of no return: availability of moves
The time elapsed dictates which moves remain viable without the entire project collapsing. As the assessment deadline approaches, certain interventions will become impossible.
- Early phase – high flexibility: In this phase, all moves are on the table and are less likely to disrupt the outcome. Relationships in the group are not yet “set”; this is the prime time for restructuring or removal. If a group dynamic feels toxic early on, it is better to act than hope it improves.
- Middle phase – the pivot point: The “journey” is well under way. Restructuring is now difficult and risks derailment. Interventions should shift towards mediation and the formal implementation of peer involvement tools. This ensures that any friction is documented and can be accounted for in the final mark.
- Late phase – the post-hoc phase: Structural change is now essentially unfeasible. If a group fails at this stage, your options are limited to retrospective “fixes”: some peer involvement mechanisms might still be viable (such as a post-submission peer review survey, which generates a weighting factor to adjust individual marks) or an alternative assessment performed individually after the initial group submission.
Contextual weighting: choosing the move
While the timeline tells you what is possible, the context tells you what is appropriate. The choice of move should be filtered through three lenses:
- The nature of the ‘shock’: A logistical challenge (for example, a student arrives mid-term) requires a different response from a safety issue (such as a student being bullied).
- Student outcomes: The benefit of instilling real-world resilience in students (which often results in inflexible structures or decision-making) is a trade-off with prioritising the student experience (which allows for higher flexibility).
- Bandwidth: How much administrative effort are you willing to spend to resolve the friction? Every intervention has a cost in academic time, and consistency of approach is necessary, even in large cohorts.
The scenario sandbox: from cards to classrooms
To help move from theory to practice, we developed a challenge card game based on examples of real-world “shocks”. Here are a few examples:
Category A: Integrity and equity (the ‘unfairness’ shocks)
- Undeclared AI use: A submission appears to have been generated by artificial intelligence without appropriate declaration. How this is dealt with will depend in part on institutional policy. Move: Peer involvement (to verify individual input), such as referring to group meeting logs.
- ‘Lone wolf’: On deadline day, a student submits a solo version because they “didn’t trust” the group. Move: Alternative assessment – after establishing the facts, treat the solo work as a separate submission, effectively removing the student from the group for the purposes of marking.
Category B: Logistics and timing (‘flow’ shocks)
- Week six arrival: Students arrive after groups are already well formed. Move: Restructuring (if early enough) or alternative assessment.
- Learning profile: A report on a student’s situation indicates that additional support measures are needed, stating they should not be asked to work in a group; this can happen at any point in the term. Move: Removal, followed by alternative assessment.
Category C: Conflict and safety (‘human’ shocks)
- Safety concern: A student reports feeling unsafe because of a protected characteristic. Move: Removal (immediate and non-negotiable, regardless of the timeline). Safety concerns should always be addressed with appropriate support from safeguarding or other well-being teams.
- Total breakdown: A group refuses to work together any longer in week seven. This could be for interpersonal reasons, such as external conflict between group members. Move: Restructuring into smaller units or individual tasks.
Academic resilience
Navigating these challenges requires the same soft skills and resilience we ask of our students. Having a clear timeline and a defined set of solutions removes the paralysis of choice for educators. By understanding from the outset the main mechanisms at our disposal, and when or where they can be used, we can manage these “shocks” without losing the integrity of the module or compromising the students’ ability to complete it successfully.
By framing these challenges not as failures of the assessment but as a foreseeable and actionable part of the professional collaborative process, we prepare ourselves to support our students, and our students for the authentic realities of the workplace.
Sarah Sholl is a lecturer at Edinburgh Napier University. Stephen Yorkstone is a consultant, coach and secretary to the board for the International Association of Facilitators.
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