Managing your enrolment:

Guidelines for Using Group Assessment in MIMS Units

These guidelines were discussed in meetings of the SIMS Working Party on Group Assessment, on 6 and 21 March 2003 . Following comments received from some staff, the document was further revised at a meeting on 2 May 2003 . The Working Party comprised Clyde Cook, Susan Foster, Doug Hamilton, Henry Linger, Helana Scheepers and Kerry Tanner. The document was presented to the School Education Committee on 5 May 2003 , and subject to minor amendments, was approved to be forwarded to the School Board for possible ratification as a recommended School policy.

Background

Recent focus groups with MIMS students have demonstrated a high level of dissatisfaction with group assessment amongst the student cohort. Perceived problems relate to unfairness in allocation of workload; inequity in marks assigned (ie the tendency towards the norm, with high achievers' grades being reduced and low achievers' grades raised); group management issues; difficulties in part-timers scheduling a common meeting time for the group; and cultural differences.

This document seeks to address some of these concerns. It 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 of graduates having demonstrated skills in effective teamwork and 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 quality 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, (eg discourage students from taking up this option by requiring them to do as much individually as they would have done as a group).

  • 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, eg:

    • 1.4.1 Where possible, keeping the proportion of overall unit assessment allocated to group work relatively small (eg not more than 30% of overall assessment).

    • 1.4.2 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 The timing of group assessment within a semester is an important factor in the success of group work. Preferably group assessment should be scheduled for the middle part of a semester (ie not in the first couple of weeks or the last couple of weeks of semester).

    • 1.5.1 Scheduling of group assessment too early in the semester tends to reduce students' ability to select others they are comfortable working with, and to increase the likelihood of ‘chance groups' that comprise one or two students who will do most of the work whilst others ‘go along for the ride'.

    • 1.5.2 Scheduling of group assessment too late puts great pressure on students at a time they are finalising their individual assignments and studying for exams.

  • 1.6 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 that threaten their task progress. Group assignments should emphasise these expectations of students, but also outline processes to be followed for extreme cases where serious conflicts or issues have proven irresolvable. Lecturers should have in place routine feedback mechanisms to ensure they are aware of any simmering issues with group work and are in a position to intervene early before problems escalate. (See Sections 2.2 Procedures and Attachment 1 on this point)

2. Procedures

Recommended procedures for implementing these guidelines:

  • 2.1 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 Possible mechanisms for ensuring that student issues and concerns with a group assignment are identified early and addressed promptly include the following:

    • 2.2.1 Students recording minutes of team meetings that are regularly checked by tutors.

    • 2.2.2 Students keeping a reflective diary on group process issues that are regularly reviewed by tutors.

    • 2.2.3 A timeslot being scheduled in selected tutorials throughout the semester for team progress reports.

    • 2.2.4 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.

    • 2.2.5 Including in the guidelines for group assessment an outline of procedures for managing risk in teams. (See Attachment 1 for an example). This may be introduced in the context of ‘if and when' teams identify a problem or potential problem that threatens their progress.

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

    • 2.3.1 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].

    • 2.3.2 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].

    • 2.3.3 Interviews with individual students that explore their contributions to the team project. [Can use in combination with 2.3.1].

  • 2.4 An introductory seminar for new students on group assessment and effective teamwork strategies is recommended. The Faculty FIT9001 Masters Transition Unit would be an ideal vehicle for this—however it is not one of the topics currently included there. Negotiations need to pursued with FLITE Centre staff on this issue, and on related issues with group assessment.

Attachment 1

Procedures for Managing Risk in Teams

  1. In the first instance, your team must take responsibility for identifying and dealing with issues that threaten progress with your team task, eg confronting the non-performer.
  2. Irreconcilable issues within your team should be discussed with your tutor, and where no resolution is found, in turn consult with your lecturer.
  3. In extreme cases after your team has made serious attempts to deal with performance issues, a final course of action may be that the non-performing member is expelled from your team.

Back to top