Guidelines for Using Group Assessment in BIS Units (Information Technology)

Student Support and Services

Managing your enrolment:

Amending your enrolment
Re-enrolment for continuing students
Student forms
Allocate+ (Class allocation)
Monash University Timetable System (MUTTS)
Monash principal dates
Credit / Recognition of Prior Learning
Summer semester
Monash student services centre

Background

The SIMS Working Party comprising Clyde Cook, Susan Foster, Doug Hamilton, Henry Linger, Helana Scheepers and Kerry Tanner, suggested that value could be achieved by having a modified version of the MIMS draft guidelines for group assessment for BIS units. The working party considered that issues raised by MIMS students in focus groups, were similar to those experienced by BIS students.

The modified document is not intended to be prescriptive, but rather a set of broad guidelines for staff to consider when using group assessment in their units. Its function is to encourage staff to think about issues with group assessment and to have a sound educational rationale for any group assignments they use.

1. General Principles

1.1 As a general principle, there should be a sound educational rationale for group assessment that is explained clearly in assessment guidelines and assignment documents.

1.2 An educational rationale for group assessment may include points such as the following:

1.2.1 The project-based nature of much of the work in IS and IM, and the crucial importance that IT graduates are able to demonstrate skills in effective teamwork when managing the complex interpersonal dynamics and conflicts that inevitably emerge in a project team.
1.2.2 Specific focus areas are the development of skills in effective communication, running meetings, time management, negotiation, resolving conflict, achieving consensus, focusing team effort on the project task, managing expertise, developing mechanisms for ensuring that all members contribute appropriately, and producing a cohesive, well integrated/ effectively synthesised team report.
1.2.3 The potential, through the dynamic interplay of ideas in an effective team, to generate better solutions than can be produced by an individual working alone.

1.3 Where group assessment is used, there should be some alternative form of individual assessment provided for students with genuine difficulties pertaining to group work or who qualify for ‘special consideration'. Such decisions are at the discretion of the lecturer, and the individual work alternative should be the exception rather than the rule.

1.4 One of the main concerns students express over group assessment is that it penalises high achievers and rewards low achievers. Staff should consider ways to address this concern, by for example developing ways to recognise the differential contributions of members within a group (ie not all team members receiving the same mark). (See Section 2.3 Procedures on this point)

1.5 One of the major aims of group assessment is for students to develop skills in effective teamwork, and for teams to be self-regulating and able to address issues that arise which threaten their task progress. Group assignments should emphasise these expectations of students, but also outline processes to be followed in extreme cases where serious conflicts or issues have proven irresolvable. It is advisable that lecturers should have in place routine feedback mechanisms to ensure they are aware of possible simmering issues with group work and are in a position to intervene early before problems escalate. (See Sections 2.2 and 2.5 Procedures on this point)

1.6 Students should be provided early in their course with:

1.6.1 A document outlining SIMS rationale for group assessment and guidelines for working effectively in groups.
1.6.2 A seminar for both students and tutors that presents the advantages and the pitfalls of group work, and to provide training in effective strategies for working in groups/ teams.
1.6.3 Lecturers should refer to such course documentation and training in their guidelines for group assignments in their unit outlines.

2. Recommended Procedures

The following procedures for implementing these guidelines are suggestions only:

2.1 As part of the assignment documentation, lecturers should specify the educational rationale for the group assignment, set clear parameters and a schedule of key milestones and deliverables, and define in detail expectations of students undertaking the group project.

2.2 Set aside tutorial sessions early in the semester, in which:

2.2.1 Students are engaged in strategies to assist in the formation of their groups and to provide the opportunity for the development of skills in effective teamwork. ( See point 1.6 ).
2.2.2 A group contact template be provided (see Appendix A), to enable group members to share contact details; i.e. mobile numbers, email addresses and to include suggested meeting times during the week when each group member is available to attend a meeting.
2.2.3 Students are encouraged to participate in establishing (role plays) clear guidelines for affirmative action that can be taken by the group if individual group members threaten the progress of the project. ( See point 2.5 below ).

2.3 Some possible mechanisms for ensuring that student issues and concerns with a group assignment are identified early and addressed promptly include the following. (NB: In some circumstances these mechanisms may not be appropriate).

2.3.1 Students to record outcomes of team meetings, providing documentary evidence of decision points, group participation and individual roles. These should be regularly reviewed (by tutors) and included as part of the marking process.
2.3.2 Students to keep a reflective diary on group process issues. These should be regularly reviewed (by tutors) and be included as part of the marking process.
2.3.3 A timeslot to be scheduled in selected tutorials throughout the semester for team progress reports.
2.3.a Points 2.2.1-2.2.3 above assume that lecturers and tutors are liaising regularly, and, amongst other things, are reviewing students' ongoing progress and issues of concern with group assessment.
2.3.4 Included in the guidelines for group assessment should be an outline of procedures for managing risk in teams. (See Point 2.5 below). This may be introduced in the context of ‘if and when' teams identify a problem or potential problem that threatens their progress.

2.4 A strategy for allocating marks in a way that recognises the differential contributions of members within a group may include:

2.4.1 Use of peer review forms. [To work effectively, these must be confidential/ handed in and returned to individuals, and not included as part of the team report].
2.4.2 Individual written accounts (preferably with supporting documentation) on what the student has contributed to the team project/ report. [Can use in combination with 2.3.1].
2.4.3 Interviews with individual students that explore their contributions to the team project. [Can be used in combination with 2.3.1].

2.5 Recommended procedures for managing risk in a team:

2.5.1 In the first instance, teams are to take responsibility for identifying and dealing with issues that threaten progress with their team task, eg confronting the non-performer.
2.5.2 Irreconcilable issues within the team should be discussed with the tutor, and where no resolution is found, in turn to consult with the lecturer.
2.5.3 After reasonable efforts have been made by the team to deal with performance issues, a final course of action should be the ability to expel the non-performing member from the group, or to split the group.
2.5.4 Where a team member is expelled, or a group is split, the lecturer has an important counselling role with the team and the individual concerned, to clarify any consequent assessment requirements.