Group Presentation Assessing contributions to group assignments'

1
Group Presentation Assessing contributions to
group assignments.

• Rebecca Graham
• Katherine Yeats
• Suzanne Witty
• Abhay Menon
• Fergus Williams

2
Quick History lesson

• The emergence of group work in society or
  education was a slow process
• Group work in education was split into social
  status
• However group work developed to be seen as a
  positive and sophisticated approach within
  education

3
Tuckman (1960s)

• Developed one of the most quoted models of group
  development

4
forming, storming, norming and performing

• Or
• Developmental sequences in groups
• Theory suggests groups go through stages.

5
4 stages

• Forming distinguishing the group leader
• Storming characterized by conflict or
  polarization
• Norming group members know their status.
• Performing the groups goal is clear

6

• Tuckmans model

7
How relevant is it?

• Tuckmans theory is a helpful starting point.
• Forms a structure of how we encounter and
  participant in groups
• Some truth in the theory

8
Positive and negative factors of group work!!

• widely used across education at all levels.
• Focussing on problems and looking at ways to
  overcome.
• General positive aspect

9
Main problems

• Student evaluation and assessment.
• Students must be rewarded fairly
• Free riders

10
Student evaluation and assessment.

• is it appropriate in education for a student to
  obtain a higher mark than other group members
  simply as a result of greater than average effort
  in the group endeavour (lejk et al. 1996)
• Methods used to overcome this
• Assess standard not effort.
• Inclusion of individual work
• Group assessment
• Individual assessment.

11
Marking work on standard not effort

• Unfair to give every member same mark for
  differing levels.
• Do those who do more deserve more!?
• Disadvantages to more able students.
• Same marking scheme
• Allows less able students to produce quality
  work.
• Quicker method.
• More practical for lower education.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

12
Inclusion of individual work

• Doesnt allocate credit fairly for research.
• Doesnt look at group work.
• Should help distinguish more able students.
• Helps show individual views and ideas
• Better indication of individual understanding

13
Group assessment

• Can students accurately assess work!?
• Score tend to cluster round the mean (Hughes and
  Large,1993 Freeman, 1995)
• Penalisation of over generous group members.
• Students reliably produce staff mark (Orpen,1992)
• Students know more about individuals effort.
• Better overall view

14
Self assessment

• Students assess themselves lower than their peers
  (Krause Popvich,1996)
• Students may be mark themselves higher
• Minimise risk of penalisation

15
Overall

• Possibly use all methods in conjunction to
  minimise disadvantages.
• Make use of minutes and social contracts to
  identify free riders.
• On the whole group work allows opportunity to
  develop such skills as
• Communication
• Leadership
• Planning
• Time management
• Team work
• Value group success/failure
• Promotes motivation

16
British Psychology Students Perceptions of Group
Work and Peer Assessment

• Ann Walker
• Aston University
• UK

17
According to Mello (1993) the main benefits of
group work are

• More comprehensive assignments
• Insight into group dynamics and processes
• Develop interpersonal skills
• Exposed to the view points of other group members
• Preparation for the real world

18
The main benefits of peer assessment are

• Fairer method for assessing group work (Davis and
  Inamdar 1988)
• Develops personal and interpersonal skills
  (Falchikov 1986)
• Prior knowledge to assessment procedure leads to
  better work (Topping 1998)
• Students work harder (Abson 1994)
• Feedback quicker and better quality (Topping
  1998, Searby and Ewers 1997)

19
Concerns regarding the use of group work and peer
assessment techniques

• Interpersonal conflict (Mello 1993)
• Unequal workload (Mello 1993)
• Effort avoidance
• Negative reactions to group learning experiences
  (Colbeck, Campbell and Bjorklund 2000)

20
Concerns on peer assessment techniques

• Unreliable marking
• Students dislike responsibility (Burnett and
  Cavaye 1980 Cheng and Warren 1997)
• Insider/outsider distinction
• Prejudice can be shown

21
The study

• Groups of 10 given a topic
• 5 students arguing for 5 arguing against
• Used pre and post questionnaires
• Student given space to write a comment
• First questionnaire completed after split into
  groups
• Second questionnaire completed after presentation

22
What was found

• Students felt that group work takes up a lot of
  time
• Still some concerns with unequal workload
• Study reaffirmed belief that assessment more
  reliable than marked solely by tutor
• Results show students able to mark responsibly
• Students disliked being asked to judge friends

23
ASSESSING CONTRIBUTIONS TO GROUP
ASSIGNMENTS(JOHNSTON, L. MILES, L. (2004)
24
INTRODUCTION

• IN INTRODUCTION SOME VERY IMPORTANT POINTS ARE
• GROUP PROJECTS HELPS IN EXPOSING STUDENTS TO
  OTHER VIEW POINTS
• HELPS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTER-PERSONAL AND
  TEAMWORK SKILLS
• PROVIDE TEAM WORK AND ACTIVE LEARNING

25

• SOME PROBLEMS IN GROUP ASSIGNMENTS WERE
• STUDENTS CONTRIBUTION INTO NUMERIC GRADE.
• FAIRLY REWARDED
• FREE RIDERS SHOULD NOT BENEFIT

26
METHOD

• PARTICIPANTS 61 STUDENTS PARTICIPATED IN THIS
  EXPERIMENT
• NATURE OF ASSIGNMENT 3 TOPIC AREAS AND KEY
  REFRENCES WERE INTRODUCED.

27

• CONTRIBUTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE EACH STUDENT RATED
  THE CONTRIBUTION
• FOR EACH OF THE TASKS SCORES FROM 3 TO -1 WAS
  GIVEN.

28
RESULTS

• RESULTS WERE PRESENTED IN FOUR PARTS
• CONTRIBUTIONS RATING
• CONTRIBUTIONS RATING AND PERFORMANCE
• STRATEGIES
• ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

29
CONTRIBUTIONS RATING

• EACH STUDENT RATED THEMSELVES AND OTHER MEMBERS
  OF THEIR WORK GROUPS.
• FROM THESE RATINGS A NUMBER OF MEASURES WERE
  CALCULATED
• RATINGS OF SELF WERE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER
• INDIVIDUALS SAW THEMSELVES AS CONTRIBUTING MORE

30
CONTRIBUTIONS RATINGS AND PERFORMANCE

• MARKS WERE AWARDED BEFORE AND AFTER THE
  ADJUSTMENT
• NO EFFECTS OF GROUP TYPE OR GROUP SIZE ON
  ASSIGNMENT MARKS
• A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT OF SEX ON ASSIGNMENT MARKS
• FEMALE STUDENTS RECEIVED HIGHER MARKS.

31
STRATEGIES

• ALL GROUP MEMBERS WERE GIVEN THE SAME RATINGS BY
  ALL OTHER MEMBERS.
• 16 STUDENTS FAILED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN
  GROUP MEMBERS
• ONLY 2 STUDENTS RATED ALL THE GROUP MEMBERS THE
  SAME
• STUDENTS WERE TAKING THE TASK SERIOUSLY

32
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

• 2 ALTERNATIVES WERE USED TO CALCULATE MARKS.
• THERE WAS NO CORRELATION AND PEER ASSESSMENTS
• THERE WAS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN SELF
  ASSESSMENTS AND MARKS AWARDED FOR THE ASSIGNMENT
• A SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION BETWEEN PEER
  ASSESSMENTS AND MARKS AWARDED WAS THERE.

33
DISCUSSION

• IN DISCUSSION THERE WERE AGAIN MANY POINTS WHICH
  WERE IMPORTANT LIKE
• TO ENGAGE STUDENTS IN THEIR WORK GROUPS ,TO TAKE
  RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR LEARNING
• STUDENTS EVALUATED RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
  PROJECT
• STUDENTS WERE TAKING THE TASK SERIOUSLY

34

• PEER RATINGS IS USED TO MODERATE GRADES, WHILE
  SELF RATINGS IS USED IN DEVELOPMENTAL MANNER.

35
CONCLUSION

• PEER ASSESSMENTS ENHANCES THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE
  OF STUDENTS
• IT ENHANCES MOTIVATION FOR PARTICIPATION AMONGST
  STUDENTS
• ENCOURAGES STUDENTS TO TAKE RESPONSBILITY FOR
  THEIR LEARNING

36
Overall Conclusion

• Although there are some problems with group work,
  we feel on a whole that its a good way of
  assessing pupils abilities.