Abstract
The Peer Assessment Collaboration Evaluation (PACE) Tool is an original peer assessment tool designed and developed by the authors to address the prevalence of social loafing in group projects in online learning environments. Online group projects offer students collaborative opportunities to engage in critical thinking and problem-solving. Students’ participation and learning in online group projects are negatively impacted by social loafing. A total of 104 students completed all study requirements, and their data were used in the final analyses. One-way repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed significant positive main effects of PACE Tool use on participants’ attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and related subcomponents. Students’ use of the tool increased their behavioral intent to engage in peer assessment in the future may reduce social loafing in group projects, thereby positively influencing academic performance. Instructors’ use of the tool may combat negative connotations associated with group work and social loafing, creating learning environments for effective group projects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The authors declare all data used in this study can be made publicly available based on the Springer Nature Research Data Policy.
Code Availability
All data were gathered in Qualtrics, downloaded into Microsoft Excel, and imported into and analyzed in IBM SPSS Statistics Version 25.0.
References
Abernathy, A. M., & Lett, W. L., III. (2005). You are fired! A method to control and sanction free riding in group assignments. Marketing Education Review, 15(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2005.11488891
Aggarwal, P., & O’Brien, C. L. (2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475308322283
Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71–80.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behaviour (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
Anson, R., & Goodman, J. A. (2014). A peer assessment system to improve student team experiences. Journal of Education for Business, 89(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.754735
Bacon, D. R. (2005). The effect of group projects on content-related learning. Journal of Management Education, 29(2), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562904263729
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.37.2.122
Blau, G., Petrucci, T., Rivera, M., & Ghate, R. (2019). Exploring the impact of receiving sender-based negative and positive feedback on team-level process outcomes using a mobile application. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 17(1), 76–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12170
Börjesson, P. O., Hamidian, A., Kubilinskas, E., Richter, U., Weyns, K., & Ödling, P. (2006). Free-riding in group work – Mechanisms and countermeasures. Journal of Management. Retrieved November 5, 2021, from URL http://www.lth.se/fileadmin/lth/genombrottet/konferens2006/p_o_b_rjesson_mfl.pdf
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18(5), 529–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138746
Brooks, C. M., & Ammons, J. L. (2003). Free riding in group projects and the effects of timing, frequency, and specificity of criteria in peer assessments. Journal of Education for Business, 78(5), 268–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320309598613
Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 26–44.
Chennamaneni, A., Teng, J. T., & Raja, M. (2012). A unified model of knowledge sharing behaviours: Theoretical development and empirical test. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(11), 1097–1115. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2011.624637
Chidambaram, L., & Tung, L. L. (2005). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1050.0051
Choi, Y., & Ro, H. (2012). An empirical study of hospitality management student attitudes toward group projects: Instructional factors and team problems. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (Online), 9(4), 303. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v9i4.7301
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Delaney, D. A., Fletcher, M., Cameron, C., & Bodle, K. (2013). Online self and peer assessment of team work in accounting education. Accounting Research Journal, 26(3), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-04-2012-0029
Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
Fearon, C., McLaughlin, H., & Tan, Y. E. (2012). Using student group work in higher education to emulate professional communities of practice. Education & Training, 54(2), 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211210233
Ferrante, C. J., Green, S. G., & Forster, W. R. (2006). Getting more out of team projects: Incentivizing leadership to enhance performance. Journal of Management Education, 30(6), 788–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562906287968
Freeman, M., & McKenzie, J. (2002). SPARK, a confidential web–based template for self and peer assessment of student teamwork: Benefits of evaluating across different subjects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00291
Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking. Journal of Technology Education JTE, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v7i1.a.2
Hall, D., & Buzwell, S. (2013). The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467123
Harding, L. M. (2018). Students of a feather “flocked” together: A group assignment method for reducing free-riding and improving group and individual learning outcomes. Journal of Marketing Education, 40(2), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475317708588
Havard, B., Ellis, H., & Kingry, M. A. (2013). The team member evaluation tool: Assigning individual grades on group projects. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 510–515). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Ingham, A. G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974). The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(4), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(74)90033-X
Kelley, D. (2015). Peer evaluation within a team design project. Journal of Engineering Technology, 32(1), 44–50. Retrieved October 22, 2021, from URL https://www.engtech.org/jet/
Kennedy, G. J. (2005). Peer-assessment in group projects: is it worth it? In Proceedings of the 7th Australasian conference on Computing education-Volume 42 (pp. 59–65). Australian Computer Society, Inc. Retrieved October 22, 2021, from URL http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.59.4744&rep=rep1&type=pdf
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), 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.78
Kinsella, G. K., Mahon, C., & Lillis, S. (2017). Facilitating active engagement of the university student in a large-group setting using group work activities. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(6), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst17_046_06_34
Ku, H. Y., Tseng, H. W., & Akarasriworn, C. (2013). Collaboration factors, teamwork satisfaction, and student attitudes toward online collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 922–929.
Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Moore, D. D. (2007). Development of a theory-based assessment of team member effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(3), 505–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406292085
Mahmood, A., Choudhary, M. A., & Qurashi, A. H. (2016, September). Redesigning the way teams work smarter using comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness (CATME). In Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), 2016 Portland International Conference on (pp. 1713–1718). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PICMET.2016.7806768
Mayende, G., Isabwe, G. M. N., Muyinda, P. B., & Prinz, A. (2015). Peer assessment based assignment to enhance interactions in online learning groups. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), Italy, pp. 668–672. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICL.2015.7318106
Mefoh, P. C., & Nwanosike, C. L. (2012). Effects of group size and expectancy of reward on social loafing. IFE Psychologia: An International Journal, 20(1), 229–240.
Mihelič, K. K., & Culiberg, B. (2019). Reaping the fruits of another’s labor: The role of moral meaningfulness, mindfulness, and motivation in social loafing. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(3), 713–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3933-z
Misra, R. K., & Khurana, K. (2017). Employability skills among information technology professionals: A literature review. Procedia Computer Science, 122, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.342
Ohland, M. W., Loughry, M. L., Woehr, D. J., Bullard, L. G., Felder, R. M., Finelli, C. J., Layton, R. A., Pomeranz, H. R., & Schmucker, D. G. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self-and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 609–630. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0177
Patil, M. S., Desai, P., Vijayalakshmi, M., Raikar, M. M., Battur, S., Parikshit, H., & Joshi, G. H. (2016). Trusted relative peer review: a novel approach to assess an individual in Team based learning. In MOOCs, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), 2016 IEEE 4th International Conference on (pp. 54–59). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITE.2016.021
Podsiad, M., & Havard, B. (2020). Faculty acceptance of the peer assessment collaboration evaluation tool: A quantitative study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 1381–1407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09742-z
Pung, C. P., & Farris, J. (2011). A preliminary assessment of the CATME peer evaluation tool effectiveness. Proceedings of the 2011 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Canada, pp. 22.261.1–22.261.15. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/17542
Repice, M. D., Sawyer, R. K., Hogrebe, M. C., Brown, P. L., Luesse, S. B., Gealy, D. J., & Frey, R. F. (2016). Talking through the problems: A study of discourse in peer-led small groups. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00154D
Roberts, T. S., & McInnerney, J. M. (2007). Seven problems of online group learning (and their solutions). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 257–268.
Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring factors that predict preservice teachers’ intentions to use web 2.0 technologies using decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(2), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782602
Serdyukov, P. (2017). Innovation in education: What works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 4–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007
Sharan, S., & Sharan, Y. (1976). Small group teaching. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology.
Simms, A., & Nichols, T. (2014). Social loafing: A review of the literature. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15(1), 58–67. Retrieved November 5, 2021, from URL http://www.na-businesspress.com/JMPP/NicholsT_Web15_1_.pdf
Sisodia, S., & Agarwal, N. (2017). Employability skills essential for healthcare industry. Procedia Computer Science, 122, 431–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.390
Sridharan, B., Muttakin, M. B., & Mihret, D. G. (2018). Students’ perceptions of peer assessment effectiveness: An explorative study. Accounting Education, 27(3), 259–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2018.1476894
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 144–176. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144
Tenório, T., Bittencourt, I. I., Isotani, S., & Silva, A. P. (2016). Does peer assessment in on-line learning environments work? A systematic review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.020
Tsitskari, E., Goudas, M., Tsalouchou, E., & Michalopoulou, M. (2017). Employers’ expectations of the employability skills needed in the sport and recreation environment. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 20, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2016.11.002
Tymon, A. (2013). The student perspective on employability. Studies in Higher Education, 38(6), 841–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.604408
Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2009a). Developing team skills with self-and peer assessment: Are benefits inversely related to team function? Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26(5), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650840911004796
Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2009b). Improving self-and peer assessment processes with technology. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26(5), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650740911004804
Wu, C., Chanda, E., & Willison, J. (2014). Implementation and outcomes of online self and peer assessment on group based honours research projects. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.779634
Yan, Z., Lao, H., Panadero, E., Fernández-Castilla, B., Yang, L., & Yang, M. (2022). Effects of self-assessment and peer-assessment interventions on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100484
Ying, X., Li, H., Jiang, S., Peng, F., & Lin, Z. (2014). Group laziness: The effect of social loafing on group performance. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(3), 465–471. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.3.465
Funding
The authors declare this research was not funded.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: Byron Havard; PACE Tool design and development: Byron Havard and Megan Podsiad; Methodology: Byron Havard; Formal data collection: Megan Podsiad; Formal data analysis: Byron Havard; Literature review: Byron Havard, Megan Podsiad, and Karen Valaitis; Writing, review, and revision: Byron Havard, Megan Podsiad, and Karen Valaitis; Supervision: Byron Havard.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Consent to Publish
The authors declare consent to publish this manuscript and will transfer copyright if this manuscript is accepted for publication.
Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the PACE Tool or the outcomes of this study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
PACE Questionnaire (42 Items)
Behavioral Intent (5 Items)
BI1 1. I would use a peer assessment tool for team projects if the opportunity exists in future courses.
BI2 2. I predict I will use a peer assessment tool on a regular basis in the future.
BI3 3. Assuming I had access to the peer assessment tool, I intend to use it.
BI4 4. I intend to use a peer assessment tool to assess team member’s project contributions.
BI5 5. In the immediate future I intend to use a peer assessment tool for team projects.
Attitude Scale (18 Items)
Attitude
AT1 6. I feel using a peer assessment tool to assign team project grades based on individual team member contributions is a wise idea.
AT2 7. I like the idea of using the peer assessment tool to assign team project grades based on individual team member contributions.
AT3 8. Using a peer assessment tool is a good idea.
AT4 9. The advantages of using a peer assessment tool outweighs the disadvantages of not using one.
AT5 10. Using a peer assessment tool makes me feel positive about completing team projects.
Ease of Use
EU1 11. The process of using a peer assessment tool to assess my team members’ project contributions is clear and understandable.
EU2 12. It would be easy for me to use a peer assessment tool to assess my team members’ project contributions.
EU3 13. Using a peer assessment tool is easy to learn.
EU4 14. Learning to use a peer assessment tool to assess individual team member contributions is easy for me.
Perceived Usefulness
PU1 15. I believe using a peer assessment tool will improve my effectiveness in working with a team.
PU2 16. I believe using a peer assessment tool will improve my performance in working with a team.
PU3 17. I believe using a peer assessment tool will improve my productivity in working with a team.
PU4 18. Using a peer assessment tool will make team projects easier.
PU5 19. I find peer assessment tools useful.
Compatibility
CP1 20. Using peer assessment tool is compatible with the way I believe team project grades should be assigned.
CP2 21. Using a peer assessment tool will fit well with team project grading.
CP3 22. Using a peer assessment tool is compatible with the way I assess my peers’ contributions.
CP4 23. Using a peer assessment tool fits well with the way I like to assess individual team member contributions.
Subjective Norm Scale (7 Items)
Subjective Norm
SN1 24. People who are important to me would think that I should use a peer assessment tool.
SN2 25. People whose opinions I value would prefer me to use a peer assessment tool to assess individual team member contributions.
Peer Influence (2 Items)
PI1 26. My peers think it is a good idea to use a peer assessment tool to assess our team members’ project contributions.
PI2 27. Peers who influence my behavior would think that I should use a peer assessment tool to assess team members’ project contributions.
PI3 28. Peers who are important to me would think that I should use a peer assessment tool to assess team members’ project contributions.
Superior Influence (2 Items)
SPI1 29. My instructor thinks it is a good idea to use a peer assessment tool to assess my team member’s project contributions.
SPI2 30. My instructor, who influences my behavior would think that I should use a peer assessment tool to assess team members’ project contributions.
Perceived Behavioral Control Scale (12 Items)
Perceived Behavioral Control
PB1 31. I am capable of using a peer assessment tool.
PB2 32. For me, in the future it will be easy to use a peer assessment tool.
PB3 33. I have the resources, knowledge, and ability to use a peer assessment tool.
PB4 34. Given the resources, opportunities, and knowledge it takes to use the peer assessment tool, I would be able to use the tool.
Self-efficacy
SE1 35. I believe I could successfully use a peer assessment tool to assess my team member’s project contributions.
SE2 36. I believe I could successfully use a peer assessment tool on my own without assistance.
SE3 37. I am confident I can demonstrate how to use a peer assessment tool to my peers.
SE4 38. I would be able to use a peer assessment tool even if there was no one around to show me how to use it.
Facilitating Conditions
FC1 39. I have the appropriate technology to use a peer assessment tool.
FC2 40. Having the appropriate technology to use a peer assessment tool is important to me.
FC3 41. I have the time to use a peer assessment tool.
FC4 42. Having the time to use a peer assessment tool is important to me.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Havard, B., Podsiad, M. & Valaitis, K. Peer Assessment Collaboration Evaluation: An Innovative Assessment Tool for Online Learning Environments. TechTrends 67, 331–341 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00832-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00832-8