Groupwork as a form of assessment: common problems and recommended solutions

Abstract

This paper reviews some of the literature on the use of groupwork as a form of assessment in tertiary institutions. It outlines the considerable advantages of groupwork but also its systemic associated problems. In discussing the problems, the paper considers issues such as “free riding” and the “sucker effect”, issues associated with ethnic mix in groups, and the social dilemma problem—in which students face conflicting demands between altruism and self-interest. The paper then outlines several models of effective groupwork and makes suggestions for implementing groupwork tasks. The paper also looks at the key assessment tasks which are commonly employed—namely, additive, conjunctive, disjunctive and discretionary tasks—and assesses which are most suited to groupwork. The paper considers the related issues of task complexity, recognition for effort, and strategies for minimising issues concerning group size. The paper also briefly considers strategies for implementing incentives for groupwork members, and outlines the issue of penalties for unproductive group members. The paper concludes by providing recommendations for how to maximise the advantages of groupwork while trying to minimise the disadvantages.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Ackermann, A., & Plummer, S. (1994). Examination into the use, place and efficacy of group work in university courses: A work in progress report of a current research project. Paper presented at the Annual Australian Association for Research in Education, Newcastle, Australia. http://www.aare.edu.au/94pap/ackea94306.txt.

  2. Anderson, G., Boud, D., & Sampson, J. (1996). Learning contracts. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bartlett, R. (1998). Making cooperative learning work in economics classes. In W. Becker & M. Watts (Eds.), Teaching economics to undergraduates: Alternatives to chalk and talk (pp. 11–34). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bligh, D. (2000). What’s the point in discussion?. Exeter: Intellect Books.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook for formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bonacich, P., Shure, G. H., Kahan, J. P., & Meeker, R. J. (1976). Cooperation and group size in the N-person prisoner’s dilemma. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 20, 687–706.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bourner, J., Hughes, M., & Bourner, T. (2001). First-year undergraduate experiences of group project work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 19–39. doi:10.1080/02602930020022264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brechner, K. C. (1977). An experimental analysis of social traps. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 552–564. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(77)90054-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brooks, C., & 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, 75(5), 268–272.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brooks, R., Scoufis, M., & McAlpine, I. (2006). Resources: Learning in groups. From http://www.edtec.unsw.edu.au/inter/dload/flex_ed/guides/studying/LearningInGroups.htm#Teamworkchecklist.

  11. Casey, C. (1995). Work, self and society: After industrialism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen, M. B., & Mullender, A. (2002). Gender and groupwork. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Connery, B. A. (1988). Group work and collaborative writing. Teaching at Davis, 14(1), 2–4.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Corrigan, H. (2006). Retrieved 28/4/06, from http://www.marketingpower.com/content31619.php.

  15. Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Davis, B. G. (2002). Collaborative learning: Group work and study teams. Retrieved 23/3/06, from http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/collaborative.html.

  17. Dawes, F. M., McTavish, J., & Shaklee, H. (1977). Behavior, communication and the assumptions about other people’s behavior in a commons dilemma situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–11. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. De Vita, G. (2002). Does assessed multicultural group work really pull UK students’ average down. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(2), 153–161. doi:10.1080/02602930220128724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dolmans, D., Wolfhagen, I., van der Vleuten, C., & Wijnen, W. (2001). Solving problems with groupwork in problem-based learning: Hold on to the philosophy. Medical Education, 35(9), 884–889. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00915.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (1999). Effects and timing of developmental peer appraisals in self-managed work groups. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 58–74. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Entwistle, N., & Waterston, S. (1988). Approaches to studying and levels of processing in university students. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 258–265.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Erez, M., & Somech, A. (1996). Is group productivity loss the rule or the exception? Effects of culture and group-based motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1513–1537. doi:10.2307/257067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Freiermuth, M. R. (2001). Native speakers or non-native speakers: Who has the floor? Online and face-to-face interaction in culturally mixed small groups. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(2), 169–199. doi:10.1076/call.14.2.169.5780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Handy, C. (1985). Gods of management: The changing work of organisations. London: Souvenir.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23(1), 1–18. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(87)90022-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Harkins, S., & Jackson, J. (1985). The role of evaluation in eliminating social loafing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(4), 457–465. doi:10.1177/0146167285114011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1214–1229. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hendry, G. D., Frommer, M., & Walker, R. A. (1999). Constructivism and problem-based learning. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 23(3), 369–371. doi:10.1080/0309877990230306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(74)90033-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. International student enrolments Up 20.0% in October 2008 (2008). From https://aei.gov.au/AEI/MIP/ItemsOfInterest/08oio23.htm.

  31. Jackson, J., & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks: Working collectively can improve performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(4), 937–942. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jaques, D. (2001). Learning in groups: A handbook for improving groupwork (3rd ed.). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Assessing students in groups. California: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Johnston, C., & Olekalns, N. (2002). Enriching the learning experience: A CALM approach. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 103–119. doi:10.1080/03075070120099403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jones, G. R. (1984). Task visibility, free riding, and shirking: Explaining the effect of structure and technology on employee behaviour. Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 684–695. doi:10.2307/258490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kerr, H. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 819–828. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(2), 224–231. doi:10.1177/014616728172007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensibility of member effort and group motivation losses; Free Rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 78–94. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kremer, J., & McGuiness, C. (1998). Cutting the cord: Student-led discussion groups in higher education. Education + Training, 40(2), 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lantane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light in the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822–832. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee, C., Ng, M., & Jacobs, G. (1997). Cooperative learning in the thinking classroom: Research and theoretical perspectives. Paper presented at the International Conference on Thinking, Singapore.

  42. Maguire, S., & Edmondson, S. (2001). Student evaluations and assessment of group projects. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 25(2), 233–240. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cjgh/2001/00000025/00000002/art00005.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mahenthiran, S., & Rouse, P. J. (2000). The impact of group selection on student performance and management. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(6), 255–264. doi:10.1108/09513540010348043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Manz, C., & Neck, C. (1995). Teamthink: Beyond the groupthink syndrome in self-managing work teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(1), 7–15. doi:10.1108/02683949510075155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. McGraw, P., & Tidwell, A. (2001). Teaching group process skills to MBA students: A short workshop. Education + Training, 43(3), 162–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Melles, G. (2004). Understanding the role of language/culture in groupwork through qualitative interviewing. The Qualitative Report, 9(2), 216–240.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Morgan, P. (2002). Support staff to support students: The application of a performance management framework to reduce group working problems. From http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/business/resources/archiverequest.

  48. Morris, R., & Hayes, C. (1997). In R. Pospisil & L. Willcoxson (Eds.), Learning through teaching (pp. 229–233). Perth: Murdoch University. http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1997/morris.html.

  49. Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Group Decision Processes, 74(1), 62–87. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9705813.

  50. Mutch, A. (1998). Employability or learning? Groupwork in higher education. Education + Training, 40(2), 50–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Nance, T., & Mackey-Kallis, S. (1997). Can’t you just talk to them? Small group work in a senior thesis course. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, Ill.

  52. Petty, R. E., Harkins, S., & Williams, K. D. (1977). The effects of group size on cognitive effort and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3(4), 579–582. doi:10.1177/014616727700300406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pryor, J. (1995). Gender issues in groupwork: A case study involving work with computers. British Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 277–288. doi:10.1080/0141192950210303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ravenscroft, S. P. (1997). In support of cooperative learning. Issues in Accounting Education, 12(1), 187–190.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ruel, G., Bastiaans, N., & Nauta, A. (2003). Free riding and team performance in project education. International Journal of Management Education, 3(1), 26–38.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Scanlon, E. (2000). How gender influences learners working collaboratively with science simulations. Learning and Instruction, 10(6), 463–481. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00009-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Scoufis, M. (2000). Integrating graduate attributes into the undergraduate curricula. Unpublished manuscript, University of Western Sydney.

  58. Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Stephenson, J., & Laycock, M. (1993). Using learning contracts in higher education. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Stern, P. C. (1976). The effects of incentives and education on resource conservation decisions in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(6), 1285–1292. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.6.1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Strobe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1996). Social compensation and the Köhler effect: Toward a theoretical explanation of motivation gains in group productivity. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior (Vol. 2): Small group processes and interpersonal relations (pp. 37–65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  62. Strong, J. T., & Anderson, R. E. (1990). Free riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data. Journal of Marketing Education, 12(2), 61–67 doi:10.1177/027347539001200208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sweeny, J. W. (1973). An empirical investigation of the free-rider problem. Social Science Research, 2, 277–292 doi:10.1016/0049-089X(73)90004-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Terenzini, P., Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., Bjorklund, S. A., & Parente, J. M. (2001). Racial and ethnic diversity in the classroom: Does it promote student learning? The Journal of Higher Education, 72(5), 509–531 doi:10.2307/2672879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Volet, S. E., & Ang, G. (1998). Culturally mixed groups on international campuses: An opportunity for intercultural learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 17(1), 5–23 doi:10.1080/0729436980170101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Watkins, R. (2004). Groupwork and assessment: The handbook for economics lecturers. Economics Network, from http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/handbook/printable/groupwork.pdf.

  67. Young, C. B., & Henquinet, J. A. (2000). A conceptual framework for designing group projects. Journal of Education for Business, 76(1), 56–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for this journal for comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Martin Davies.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Outline of group contract proforma

Source: Curtin Business School http://www.cbs.curtin.edu.au/files/cbsUnitsCourses/Contract%20Administration%20502.doc

Other contract proformas are available elsewhere (Anderson et al. 1996; Stephenson and Laycock 1993).

[To be altered or adopted as each group considers appropriate and with flair and imagination!].

  1. 1.

    Parties to the contract

    This contract is made between the following students of [insert unit].

    [Insert student name, addresses, and contact details and student numbers]

    And

    [Student 2]

    And

    [Student 3 etc]

  2. 2.

    Course Controller and/or Tutor

    This contract is made for the purpose of completing assessment (the project) in [insert unit] and is to be handed in to [insert tutor/course controller as case may be].

  3. 3.

    Objectives of contract

    The objectives of the project are to [insert here what you wish to achieve for example;

    1. (a)

      Distinction standard project

    2. (b)

      Completion on time without extension

    3. (c)

      Project capable of publication in a journal at a later date etc.].

  4. 4.

    The date ofcompletionandhanding in for the project is [insert date].

  5. 5.

    Allocation of work

    The allocation of work for the project shall be [insert description of how the group will carry out the work, the division of research, writing, editing]

    [NB. This is a significant clause in your contract - give it lots of thought. You may insert a separate clause for each issue i.e. Research, writing etc. You should avoid doing a project that simply allocates parts of the project to each student, it is preferable that all students have a role in each aspect of the project or at a minimum in the editing of the project].

  6. 6.

    Meetings

    The group will meet to discuss the progress of the project on the following dates

    [Create a schedule attached to the contract of the days that you will meet].

  7. 7.

    Disputes

    Where a dispute arises as to the following matters [for example

    1. 1

      Work load

    2. 2.

      Quality of work

    3. 3.

      Input/emergency/contribution]

      The dispute will be resolved in the following manner [insert your dispute resolution clause—you may find that some awards, workplace agreements or contracts may be useful for this clause].

  8. 8.

    Unequal contributions

    Where the group determines that the contributions of the parties have not been equal the group may

    [insert the means of resolving this problem].

    [NB: The course controller or tutor is not to be involved in the disputes in relation to workload, it

    is for the members of the group to resolve these issues internally].

  9. 9.

    Schedules of Research

    Attached to this contract is a schedule of the Research techniques employed to complete the project.

    [Attach schedule].

  10. 10.

    Self Assessment of Group

    Attached to this contract is a schedule setting out the manner in which the group assessed its

    progress and whether it had achieved the objectives of the project.

  11. 11.

    Any other relevant clauses or schedules.

    In this clause include any other matter that you think is important for the completion of the contract

    and project.

Signed:

Student 1:

_________________________________

Student 2:

_________________________________

Student 3:

_________________________________

Student 4:

_________________________________

Appendix 2

See Table 1.

Table 1 Groupwork checklist

Appendix 3

See Table 2.

Table 2 Rubric for evaluation group/team members

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davies, W.M. Groupwork as a form of assessment: common problems and recommended solutions. High Educ 58, 563–584 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9216-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Groupwork
  • Assessment
  • Free-riding
  • Sucker effect