Assessment of Group Work: Assessment of Group Work: Opportunities - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 1 1 1

Assessment of Group Work: Assessment of Group Work: Opportunities and Challenges Opportunities and Challenges

Presentation 1 Presentation 1 10 November 2017 10 November 2017 Erasmus+ LOAF Project, Erasmus+ LOAF Project, Vilnius, Lithuania Vilnius, Lithuania Dr Declan Kennedy, Dr Declan Kennedy, Department of Education, Department of Education, University College Cork, Ireland. University College Cork, Ireland.

2 2 2 2

1. 1.

Why use group work Why use group work as part of our teaching, as part of our teaching, learning and learning and assessment? assessment?

2. 2.

What are the What are the advantages and advantages and challenges of group challenges of group work? work?

3. 3.

How do we assess How do we assess group work? group work?

4. 4.

What can we learn What can we learn from the literature from the literature about assessment of about assessment of group work? group work?

3 3

Why use Group Work?

Group work refers to two or more students working together as part of a formal assessment. Group work is usually related to the module or programme learning outcomes. Social interaction and collaboration may be an important part of achieving some of the learning outcomes of the module or programme. The assessment task may be more demanding than individual students could manage on their own so sharing of the labour is required, e.g. detailed research required, a lot of data to be analysed, high level of problem-solving skills, report writing, presentation of results, etc.

4 4

Advantages of Group Work

The literature documents a range of academic and social benefits of group work: Group work provides a structure within which students can get to know one another and thus reduce their sense of isolation – especially in first year of university. Gain teamwork skills with opportunities to develop leadership skills. The development of collaborative skills, e.g. flexiblity, accepting criticism, compromising, negotiation. Development of planning skills as part of a team. Increased active participation and involvement in the programme. Opportunities for students to work on large and/or complex projects. The promotion of student autonomy by transferring some of the responsibility for teaching and learning to students. Organisation and time management skills. Development of higher order thinking skills, e.g. evaluating the work

• f others, analysing the requirements of the project, interpreting

results, etc.

5 5

Advantages of Group Work (continued)

Group work has the potential to improve student engagement and their performance. Springer et al, (1999) reviewed 383 studies and

• n the basis of the evidence supported

“widespread implementation of small-group learning” (p21) in undergraduate education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology. There must be assessment mechanisms that encourage student learning.

6 6

Challenges presented by group work

The management and guidance of group work may take more work than marking individual projects of papers. Students are interested, motivated and committed to undertaking group work to very different degrees. Some students may be hostile to the concept and don’t see it as a reflection of authentic workplace practices. You need to present a clear educational rationale for using group work for assessment. Otherwise, students may be unconvinced of its value and therefore resistant to its use. Teachers must spend considerable time setting up group work and preparing students for it. Students must also invest time undertaking it, particularly if it is inadequately planned. The over-use of group work in several modules can put too much pressure on students' scarce time. (UNSW 2008).

7 7

Social and personality differences, or

• rganisational difficulties, can break up

groups and teams, thus disadvantaging them in assessment. Students feeling excluded (Noonan, 2013), The demands placed on students’ time (Lee et al., 2015). It can be difficult to grade individual input (discussed later) (UNSW 2008).

8 8

Selecting the composition of each group

May be done by self-selection, by the teacher (“tutor”, “professor”, “lecturer”) or randomly.

9 9

Self Selection

Self selection allows students to work with friends and this may increase motivation to succeed (Quinn and Hughes 2007). Some students will not be selected for group inclusion as they fall outside the “friendship groups” for various reasons (Vinkenoog 2010) . This could result in the marginalisation of some students and cause a lack of engagementt at an early stage (Mellor and Entwistle 2010). Self-selection could result in students missing out on the

• pportunity to work and listen to the variety of views that

working with students that they haven't worked with before may provide. (Noonan 2013) The pre-existing friendship groups may discourage students from adopting different roles within the group which in turn may inhibit individual contributions (Buxton 2003).

10 10

Advice on avoiding self-selection

Students could identify other students who are disorganised, poor attendance record or too vocal in their views and would not wish to work with these in a self-selected group due to a negative impact on the grade achieved. A selection process set up by the teacher is preferable so that suggest students should be encouraged to work together in non-selected groups from the beginning (Mellor 2009) .If introduced later on in the programme when students have been accustomed to having self-selected groups, resistance from students could be experienced.

Random selection could be considered a more authentic situation encountered in the workplace.

The selection system used by D Kennedy

11 11

“Streaming groups raises group marks for the groups of better students and reduces the marks of the groups of weaker students, including on subsequent individual

• assessments. So it is better to create mixed ability

groups provided assessment works in such a way that the better students can benefit from their greater contribution.” (Gibbs 2010) Importance of cohesiveness in the group, i.e. students focus on the task to be completed for the group assignment rather than spending time on conflict management. The teacher has a key role in taking steps to ensuring group cohesiveness, e.g. providing support to students who feel isolated. This includes considering how marginalised or isolated students can best be supported within groups in an equitable way (Foreman-Peck and McDowell 2010).

12 12

Some BSc(Ed) students and staff

13 13

Problem of “Freeloading” (“free riding”, “passengers”, “social loafing”) in a group

“Free riders” or ‘passengers’ are students assigned to a group who do not contribute or do not contribute to the level required to complete the project and in so doing cause unnecessary stress and frustration to fellow students in the group (Perry 2008). This is part of the experience of group work – preparation for the world of work when they encounter colleagues that do not contribute to the workload.

14 14

Strategies for dealing with “freeloaders”

Important to have a marking system to identify the contribution of individuals. Otherwise it has been shown that there is a very significant decrease in individual effort when working in groups compared with the work of individuals (Latane et al. 1979). The level of freeloading increased when tasks are not identified clearly. (George 1992) Setting group goals with reward attributed to individual contributions; Informal and formal reviews of group/in-dividual performance at regular intervals. Group report and individual logs and weekly reflective journals. Students appreciate it when the lecturer makes an attempt to deal with students that are not contributing fairly to the project (Perry 2008)

15 15

What size of group?

A group size of 4 – 5 is generally recommended in the literature. As group size increases, individual motivation decreases (Kerr & Bruun 1983). Students may lack the group management and facilitation skills to cope with large groups. Large groups slow down progress – more difficult to reach decisions and monitoring progress. Larger groups encourage freeloading as students can avoid work more easily.

16 16

Assessment of Group Work

17 17

Carrying out Group Work

No simple formula or “best approach” to ensure that group-work assignments and assessment of these assignments will run smoothly. Choose an approach that suits your programme, the demands of of the module, the facilities available, etc.

18 18

Assessment Challenges

Getting the assessment “right” and appropriate for your own particular circumstances in your institution. Group work does not automatically benefit students – it needs to be well planned, well structured and supported by the teacher and by the institution (Dundalk Guidelines 2016). Student perceptions of unfairness (MacFarlane, 2016 Smith and Rogers 2014).

19 19

Assessment of group work

The use of group work with clear learning outcomes assessed by means of clear criteria (e.g. rubrics or marking schemes) provides many benefits to students. It is important that the assessment encourages the students to undertake the tasks and rewards their hard work. Students who do not put in the effort should not score well on the assessment. It is important that there is no lack of clarity about individual versus group marks. Otherwise, collaboration may be damaged and students may fear that they are in competition with each other for a share of the group mark.

20 20

Starting out with Group Assessment for the first time

McInnis and Devlin (2002) suggest: Start with a group work component that is a small proportion of the overall assessment, i.e. not a “high stakes” assessment. This makes it easier to resolve any problems that may arise. Address the following five key areas to ensure the success of Group Assessment.

21 21

• 1. Preparation for Group Work

Introductory talk to students to make it clear why group work is being used in this programme, e.g. refer to the programme learning

• utcomes or module learning outcomes or characteristics required

by employers. Outline importance of students working together as a team to achieve the objectives and learning outcomes of the group assignment. Discuss roles of each member of group, delegation of responsibility, how to deal with disagreements, free loaders, etc. Outline the support available from you and your colleagues. Teacher is in the role of mentor and motivator. Agree a communication process. Agree a mechanism for identifying and resolving problems. Time spent preparing students adequately for group assessment will help to deal with and prevent many of the challenges that arise in group work assessment where resolution requires considerable lecture involvement and time (Noonan 2013, Donnan et al. 2008).

22 22

• 2. Develop Assessment Criteria

Use the learning outcomes as the starting point to develop the assessment criteria, e.g. if one of the learning outcomes is that students should be able to “work effectively as a member of a team”, you could use regular attendance at team meetings as one of the assessment criteria or look for evidence in the “Weekly Reflections” section of their portfolio of their contributions to the work of the team. Commonly both the product of group work and the processes involved in generating the product are assessed. Assessing the product involves assessing items such as written report, poster presentation, portfolio (containing evidence of work, e.g. photos, own records of meetings). , peer presentation, exhibition, etc. Assessing the process encourages students to pay attention to how their group works – allocating the tasks, discussions, resolving issues, improving efficiency, etc. The learning outcomes of the module will help you to decide the weighting of product and process. (Will be discussed later)

23 23

Some criteria for assessing the processes involved in generating the product are: Adoption of group roles and responsibilities Development of negotiation and leadership skills Demonstration of creative problem solving Responsiveness to feedback from group members Evidence of conflict management and resolution Evidence of reflective listening Appropriate organisation and time management Evidence of contributing equally. (UNSW 2008)

24 24

• 3. Planning the Assessment

Write down the objectives and learning outcomes of the group assignment. Decide the weighting of marks for product and processes. Decide on the assessment criteria and marking scheme. Rubrics can be helpful here (see later). Clarify how groups are expected to manage themselves and identify and resolve issues that arise. Finalise the roles in each group, e.g. chair (co-ordinator, group leader, ensuring equal distribution and completion

• f tasks, agendas), secretary (note taker, writing up

minutes, sending out progress reports), researcher (sourcing background documentation), editor (synthesis

• f items into final product), etc.

25 25

• 4. Implementation of Group Work

Clarify why you are using group work and outline the advantages of using group work. Discuss the assessment criteria. Check to ensure that there is no lack of co-ordination with other modules being undertaken by students to avoid students being involved in too many projects at the same time. Address any students’ concerns. Allow time within the timetable to give students the opportunity to develop skills in group work, e.g. generating ideas for carrying out the project, encouraging

• pen discussions, recording group ideas,

responding constructively to other people’s ideas.

Since students may have no prior experience with group work, you need to spend some time filling in some background for them:

26 26

Provide a forum for discussion, debate and information sharing within groups. Set milestone points for students to submit work completed at these stages and ask group to discuss and document each student’s contribution. Build into the timetable of the module an opportunity for groups to meet regularly. Organise a seminar (or a series of parallel seminars held at the same time) to allow students to share the final product of the group work with their peers and invite

• discussions. Arrange for support to be given to students

to help prepare for oral presentations, e.g. guidelines for giving an effective presentation, guidelines for using AV aids, tips for addressing an audience and opportunities to rehearse. Make sure that students are aware of the assessment criteria.

27 27

How much support should be given by the teacher to the groups?

Available when needed via email and telephone contact. Informal reviews of group/individual performance during the planning phase. Some monitoring is necessary to avoid problems such as student disengagement or “free loading” – could be done by receiving periodic reports. A high level of teacher support could cause lack

• f engagement for some students by allowing

them to be led rather than empowering them to take the lead and develop the project (Jones and Smith 2010)

28 28

“Allocating a single group mark to all members of a group rarely leads to appropriate student learning behaviour, frequently leads to freeloading, and so the potential learning benefits of group work are likely to be lost, and in addition students may, quite reasonably, perceive their marks as unfair.” (Gibbs 2010)

• 5. Marking the group work

29 29

“It is rare that assessment of groups is for the purpose of arriving at a mark for the group. It is individuals who graduate and gain qualifications …” and we need a form of assessment that is “designed to produce an appropriate mark for an individual who has been involved in group work”. (Gibbs 2010)

30 30

Importance of avoiding a group mark

Many ‘case study’ accounts of group work assessment that allocating all individuals within each group the same un-moderated group mark results in a variety of problems, and should be

• avoided. (e.g. Bacon and Stewart 1999)

If each student knows that the mark they obtain depends on the work of other students, there is little incentive to put in much effort themselves Students may also put more effort into other modules with individual assessment where their hard work will result in better marks.

31 31

Assessing individual contributions

Each individual in the group undertakes a particular component of the group work. Examples of components: literature review, data collection, writing report, creating a Powerpoint, creating a poster, creating an artefact (e.g. a lesson plan), etc. Different components have different levels

• f challenge.

32 32

“A frequent complaint from students regarding group work is that it is not fair. This is often because groups are assessed only on the

• utputs of group work, while the critical

processes involved in producing the outputs are not valued in the grading. Remember, rich and positive learning can result from the experience of working in groups, even though the actual produced output might not be successful. Ask yourself: Are the "soft skills" of working effectively in groups important learning

• utcomes in their own right? If so, explicitly

include them in the assessment criteria and reward their development in the grading.” (UNSW 2008)

33 33

Guidelines when setting marking schemes for assessing group work

Concentrate on familiar academic forms of performance, e.g. essay writing, report writing, analysis of data, writing of reflective portfolio, seminar presentation, poster presentation, production of artefact, etc. Avoid including vague criteria such as “group work skills” in the assessment as these types of areas are difficult to define.

34 34

Dividing final mark between group task and component tasks

Earl (1986) suggests that 50% of the marks be allocated for the quality of the individual’s own component and 50% for the product of the entire

• group. This ensures that students pay attention

to both their own component as well as to the

• verall task.

The group mark component can be moderated up or down (marks added or subtracted) depending on the level of involvement demonstrated by the individual’s own component.

35 35

Example of system combining group mark and individual mark.

40 80 85 65 70 Total

20 40 45 25 30

Individual mark (portfolio)

(max = 50)

20 40 40 40 40 Group mark

(max = 50)

Student E Student D Student C Student B Student A

36 36

Techniques to assess individual’s contribution to group work

All students must produce a research portfolio in which details of their work are outlined, e.g. research diary (log), resources consulted, research output, weekly reflections recorded and sent to teacher, etc. Some authors recommend organising a brief viva (oral examination) for each student: “conducting a brief viva for each student, who would enter the viva with the group mark and leave it with the group mark plus or minus perhaps 20%, on the basis of the adequacy of their answers to probing questions about their involvement in aspects of the group project work” (Gibbs, 1995a). In some institutions, vivas are only given to students in danger of failing the module. Time may not allow vivas to be given to every student.

37 37

Areas examined when assessing contribution to group work.

Effectiveness in project management, e.g. setting up a timeline and keeping to deadlines set down as milestones. Effectiveness in giving and accepting support and advice. Commitment to the group, e.g. active participation and taking responsibility. Evidence of contribution, e.g. research information gathered, preparation of written reflections, Quality of contributions, e.g. applying higher order thinking skills, evaluation, analysis, problem solving (managing and resolving difficulties)

38 38

Programme Review

The programme co-ordinator needs to review the programme to ensure: There is a coherent approach to group-work across the programme and expectations are consistent, appropriate and reasonable The group-work is appropriate in terms of the programme learning outcomes and graduate attributes, Students receive the training and support they need, when they need it. (Dundalk 2016)

39 39

The use of peer assessment as part of assessment of group work?

Peer assessment involves students in a group individually evaluating each other’s contribution using a predetermined set

• f criteria.

It has been found (Falchikov and Goldfinch 2000) that in a meta-analysis of 29 studies that students are more reliable when assessing traditional academic projects (e.g. essays, portfolios and research reports) than when assessing practice in group work. Peer assessment of professional practice was considered unreliable compared to the marks allocated by the teacher.

40 40

Students can lack experience in the area of professional practice and some may not have a responsible attitude to group assessment. (Boud 1986) Peer assessment can give rise to some students being concerned about being discriminated

• against. (UNSW 2008).

Research by Elliot and Higgins showed that while students had a strong belief that they were able to assess their own contribution to the group work but found it difficult to be fair when assessing their peers particularly if they were aware that their peers had personal reasons for not participating in the group (Elliot and Higgins 2005)

41 41

Failing the group work assessment?

The teacher has a responsibility to assign a fail mark for group work to poorly performing students – vital importance of cooperation in society (Foreman-Peck 2010). The lecturer should be the only person with the authority to fail a student. Foreman-Peck states that the possibility of failure is a central concept of fairness in assessment Failure is essential to stop students exploiting the efforts of other students in a group (Foreman-Peck 2010).

42 42

The use of self assessment as part

• f assessment of group work?

Students evaluate their own contribution based on predetermined criteria and award themselves a mark. The marks are then moderated by the lecturer.

43 43

“Group-based Assessment” (Chapter 11) – Mike Heathfield Group work is a taught subject – youth and community workers are trained are trained in the silled use of group work. Introduced a Group Assessment sheet designed to allocate tutor grades to group-work items.

44 44

The Group Assessment Sheets measured contributions on:

• 1. Regular attendance at group meetings
• 2. Contribution of ideas for the task.
• 3. Researching, analysing and preparing

material for the task.

• 4. Contribution to cooperative group

process.

• 5. Supporting and encouraging group

members.

• 6. Practical contribution to the end product.

45 45

46 46

47 47

Group Presentations

A study of students’ responses to assessment at three universities found ample evidence of students finding assessment techniques they had not previously encountered (such as group presentations) anxiety provoking, disorienting and, when they contributed substantially to their module marks, unfair (Gibbs and Dunbar-Goddet 2007).

48 48

Comparing marks obtained by groups with marks obtained by individuals

“If the same task is set for groups as for individuals, then group work should produce higher average marks, for a variety of reasons:

– groups have more human resources and are more productive than individuals and so should be able to read more, cite more sources, collect more data, and so on. The total ‘time on task’ is greater than for individual assignments. – groups can cope with greater complexity and be more creative than can individuals and so should be able to tackle more challenging tasks, produce more solutions to problems, and produce more elaborated analyses, taking into account more issues. – students learn more in groups than they do on their own (Knight 2004, De Vita 2002).”

(Gibbs 2010)

49 49

“Groups would be expected to outperform individuals to such an extent that they are usually set much larger and more difficult tasks than you could reasonably set an individual, in

• rder to provide a sufficient challenge for the group and in
• rder to produce an ‘acceptable’ range of marks.”

(Gibbs 2010)

50 50

Use of technology in group work.

Technologies (e.g. the Learning Management System Moodle) can be integrated into group work to: Facilitate communication. Provide a platform for students to demonstrate progress being made. Allow students to develop reports and submit completed work online. Allow teachers to identify the “social loafers” Assist teachers to grade. Skype meetings can get around problem of room availability.

51 51

Case Study 1 Student Experience of Group Work and Group Assessment in Higher Education (Hassanien 2006)

52 52

A total of 72 tourism and hospitality students, University

• f Wolverhampton, UK.

Students felt that group work is a method that significantly fosters the development of a wider breadth

• f knowledge through discussion, clarification of ideas,

and evaluation of others’ ideas. Students consider “poor communication” and “poor attendance at group meetings” as the main challenges they face when working within a group. Students recommended “dedicated assignment seminars” as the most effective tool, which could be used to improve the effectiveness of group work. Students also recommended having a formal lecture on group and team work. A significant number of students did not agree with peer assessment.

53 53

“Group work has been very useful method in providing me with more valuable knowledge and experience compared with carrying out tasks individually” “Group work provides me with more confidence as help is at hand from other group members at the time of uncertainty.” “Breaking up a task into different bits and allocating them to different group members facilitate the process of our learning and development and hence gaining a better understanding of the subject matters.”

54 54

“One of the problems I faced in terms of group communication was that there were occasions we could not arrange a suitable time to meet and discuss progression. This was mainly due to other academic and social commitments of individual members. Also the response time for emails was prolonged on a few occasions, and members did not answer mobile calls for what ever reason.” “I felt that certain members of the group were relying on other group members to complete tasks, and basically were not pulling their weight to provide equal amount of contribution. The bottom line is, they were in for a ‘free ride’.” “When we are allocated in groups by the tutor and not personal preference, usually we face the problem of having members whose grade expectations and work standards are lower than mine. There- fore this has either has an impact on the final grade or we have to spend time trying to teach and explain to the under achieving members

• f what is required. But on some occasions, if this member is basically

not bothered about a high grade, then we end up doing his work.”

55 55

“There have been occasions when I have worked with members who don’t adequately understand team work. For example they felt intimidated by

• ur comments and observations.”

“ I feel that some tutors do not get involved even a little bit when groups are facing problems. They use an easy escape route.” “Although it’s a group work, I believe that everyone should be assessed individually. ” “Some group members just don’t like to be told by others. In such occasions, I felt we needed a formal leader who could motivate individuals and facilitate the process. ”

56 56

Key Conclusions from Case Study 1

Placing students in groups and expecting them to cooperate will not necessarily promote collaborative learning. Students need explicit training in the interpersonal and small group skills that facilitate co operation in a way that promotes their learning and achievement. Students should receive training on group learning, such as how to set goals, share roles, divide tasks, use of peer and self-assessment, adopt strategies for conflict resolutions and communicate face-to-face and via technological means. Tutors should also allow time for team development through (i) building informal reflective exercises in order to assess team strengths and weaknesses and (ii) action planning to

• vercome any team weaknesses.

Tutors should act as a mentor or resource who are responsible for the eventual evaluation of the group task. While this may initially entail greater thought and effort in comparison to traditional lecture formats, the benefits of group learning far outweigh the disadvantages in such a time investment.

57 57

Case Study 2 First-year undergraduate experiences of group project work (Bourner et al. 2001).

58 58

56 accountancy students, University of Brighton UK. Students self-selected fellow students with whom to work in group. Length of group project from second week to end of first semester. Size of group was 4 – 7 All students awarded the same group mark. Students completed a detailed questionnaire.

59 59

60 60

61 61

62 62

63 63

64 64

Recommendations from students

• 1. Smaller groups (some groups had 6 - 7

members).

• 2. Offering more support to those groups

where not all the group members are “pulling their weight”.

65 65

Conclusions from Case Study 2

“How the group worked together” ….. the students produced as an appendix to their main written report. These comments suggest that there is often a pattern of group project work progress that involves high activity at the beginning and at the end, with group work inertia somewhere in the middle. Moreover, this phenomenon has been recorded elsewhere: … some teachers have found that a student’s enthusiasm is closely related to the production of documents - high at the beginning (when an outline and bibliography are being prepared) and at the end (when the final presentation is being fabricated), but low to the point

• f despair during the period of gestation. (Goodlad1978; cited in

Jaques 1984) It has been during these times of seeming inertia when the Organisation Behaviour tutors have questioned themselves whether group project work in semester one of year one is just too much to expect of new students.”

66 66

Conclusions (continued) from Case Study 2

“Different types of group project make different demands on group skills. We have seen that longer projects make demands on the skills of sustaining group enthusiasm that are absent from short projects.” “We conclude that a key to this issue lies in being clear about the intended learning

• utcomes when designing a group project. Are

the intended learning outcomes mostly about gaining subject knowledge or mostly about developing the skills of working in a team? If the latter, what are the skills in group working that the group project is intended to develop?2

67 67

Rubrics for Assessing Group Work

68 68

https://pbl101.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/3/1/31318861/group_present ation_rubric.pdf

69 69 69 69

Rubric for Assessing Group Participation

http://uwf.edu/media/university-of-west-florida/offices/cutla/documents/Rubric-for-class-participation-stanny- (5).pdf

70 70

https://www.mnsu.edu/cetl/teachingwithtechnology/tech_resources_ pdf/Sample%20Group%20Work%20Rubric.pdf

71 71

https://blogs.uoregon.edu/honoringtriballegacies/files/2016/12/0908_USMed u_NSF_SG_for_Group_Projects-1h32hko.pdf

72 72

cte.sfasu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/group_projects.doc

73 73

74 74

Some Concluding points

“If students understand why group work is being used, understand the assessment system, are collaborative and ethical in their behaviour and posses sophisticated group work skills, then only minimal assessment mechanisms may be necessary as safeguards. In the end it is the creation of a healthy learning milieu that can contribute most to solving group work assessment problems.” (Gibbs, 2010)

75 75

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this presentation you should be able to: Evaluate the role that group in developing many important skills and enhances the knowledge and understanding of students. Outline some of the challenges faced by teachers and students when implementing group work. Discuss how group work needs to be planned to achieve the programme and modules learning

• utcomes. .

Implement a mode of assessment of group work that is tailored to your own particular circumstances.

The End!

76 76

References

Boud, D. (Ed.) (1988) Developing Student Autonomy in Learning (2nd Edn.) London: Kogan Page. Bourner, J, Hughes M and Bourner, T. ((2001) First-year undergraduate experiences

• f group project work, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26:1, 19 –

39. Brown, S and Glasner, A (1998) Assessment matters in Higher Education. Society for Research into Higher Education. Buckingham. De Vita, G. (2002) Does assessed multi-cultural group work really pull UK students’ average down? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 2, pp. 153-161 Donnan, P., McCormack, C., Battye, G., Hart, I., 2008. Doing group assessment: a web-based resource of good practice case-studies. Engaging Communities Proceedings of the 31st HERDSA Annual Conference, Rotorua, 1–4 July 2008, pp. 135–144. Dundalk Institute of Technology (2016) Assessed Group-Work: A framework and

• Guidelines. Available

at:https://www.dkit.ie/system/files/groupwork_framework_guidelines_2016.pdf Earl, S. E. (1986) Staff and peer assessment - measuring an individual’s contribution to group performance, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 11, pp. 60–69. Falchikov, N. & Goldfinch, J. (2000) Student peer-assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70,3, pp. 287-322.

77 77 77 77

Foreman-Peck, L., McDowell, L., 2010. Aims, ethics and values in group work assess- ment. CETL AFL Occasional Papers No. 5. Centre for Excellence in Assessment for Learning, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne. George, J.M. (1992) Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organisations. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 7, pp. 191-202. Gibbs, G. (1995a) Learning in Groups: Tutor Guide. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development. Gibbs (2010) The assessment of group work: lessons from the

• literature. Available at:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.422.8600 &rep=rep1&type=pdf Gibbs, G. & Dunbar-Goddet, H. (2007) The effects of programme assessment environments on student learning. York: Higher Education Academy. Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/gibbs_0506.pdf

78 78

Goodlad, S. (1978) Project in UTMA. Improving Teaching Higher Education (London, University Teaching Methods Unit, London University). Hassanien, A (2006) Student experience of Group Work and Group Assessment in Higher Education. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 6(1) 17 – 39. Jacques, D. (1984) Learning in Groups (London, Croom Helm). Jones, J., Smith, A., 2010. Facilitating Group work: leading or empowering. CETL AfL Occassional Papers

• No. 5. Centre for Excellence in Assessment for Learning,

Northum- bria University, Newcastle upon Tyne.

79 79

Kerr, N. L., Bruun, S. E. (1983) Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free- rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 44,1, pp. 78-94.

Knight, J. (2004) Comparison of Student Perception and Performance in Individual and Group Assessments in Practical

• Classes. Journal of Geography in Higher

Education, 28,1, pp. 63–81.

Latane, B., Williams, K. & Harkins, S. (1979) Many hands make light the work: the causes and consequences of social loafing, Journal of Personality and Psychology, 37(6), pp. 822–832.

80 80

Lee et al. (2015). Successful student group projects: Perspectives and Strategies. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 10, 186-191. Mellor, A., Entwistle, J., 2010. Marginalised students in group work assessment: the effec- tive support of such individuals and associated ethical issues. CETL AFL Occasional Papers No. 5. Centre for Excellence in Assessment for Learning, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne Macfarlane, B. (2016). The performative turn in the assessment of student learning: a rights perspective.Teaching in Higher Education, 21(7), 839-853. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1183623 McInnis, J. and Devlin, M. (2002). Assessing Learning in Australian

• Universities. Centre for the Study of High Education, University of

Melbourne. Mellor, A., 2009. Red Guides Paper 53 Group Work Assessment: Benefits, Problems and Implications for Good Practice. Northumbria University Noonan, M. (2013). The ethical considerations associated with group work assessments. Nurse Education Today, 33, 1422-1427.

81 81

Perry, B., 2008. An introduction to mini cases on ways of dealing with “free riders”. University of Wolverhampton Quinn, F.M., Hughes, S.J., 2007. Quinn's Principles and Practice of Nurse Education, 5th edition. Nelson Thornes, Cheltenham Smith, M. & Rogers, R. (2014). Understanding nursing students’ perspectives on the grading of group work assessments. Nurse Education in Practice, 14, 112-116. Springer, L., Stanne, M.E. & Donovan, S.S. (1999) Effects of small group learning on undergraduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 1, pp. 21-51. UNSW (2008) Assessment Toolkit: Assessing by Group Work. Available at https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/printpdf/539 Vinkenoog, R., 2010. The mist-covered mountains of group work: ensuring an equal contribution from all group members in a biotechnology project. CETL AFL Occa-sional Papers No. 5. Centre for Excellence in Assessment for Learning, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne.