Problems Associated with Evaluating Student ... - CiteSeerX

Problems Associated with Evaluating Student Performance in Groups Author(s): Paul E. King and Ralph R. Behnke Source: College Teaching, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Spring, 2005), pp. 57-61 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559221 . Accessed: 14/04/2011 14:33 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=held and http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Heldref Publications and Taylor & Francis, Ltd. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to College Teaching.

http://www.jstor.org

PROBLEMS

ASSOCIATED

WITH STUDENT

EVALUATING

IN GROUPS

PERFORMANCE

Paul E. King and Ralph R. Behnke

Using small groups in student cooperative a major has become trend in learning enterprises American (Cheng and Warren 2000). higher education several practical issues involving the assess However, ment of an individual's in groups have performance from both sometimes created resistance to the method students and parents (Kagan 1995). This article eval uates the case for using cooperative group assignments the per and the problems associated with evaluating in groups. Practical formances of individuals working some of the potential for minimizing suggestions associated with group grading are offered problems on this form of and some philosophic perspectives

Abstract,

are

grading

advanced.

A

cooperative using in many academic

There gies

business

including logical

and

music,

disciplines,

sciences,

bio

studies,

computer

literature,

English

and others (for reviews, see Brufee 1993; Johnson, Johnson, and Smith 1998; Mil lis and Cottell 1998; Slavin 1990). Coop erative of

takes

learning

the most

common

many are

forms. peer

Two

tutoring

Paul E. King and Ralph R. Behnke are professors of studies at Texas Christian University. communication

Vol. 53/No.

2

and group investigation (Kroll, Masingi la, and Mau 1992). In peer tutoring, students

experienced not have

others help a task. Peer

yet mastered

who tutor

ing is used primarily with beginning dents

mathematics,

engineering,

social

strate

learning

communication,

physical

programming,

toward

but

sion.

for

potential

complete

mastered

a

task

that

expan involves

investigation to solve cooperating

Group

students or

some

has

a

they

problem not have

Tasks

independently. an

involve

stu

that

constructing engineering recom and offering interpreting on a case in a business mendations study a per or planning and presenting class,

model,

suasive

campaign

in

a

communication

second

this

form,

learning

address.

primarily

in

argument

noteworthy

favor

of

using cooperative learning is that it is valid. Students should ecologically to expect spend significant portions of their

lives

in groups,

working

and

teams,

committees (Mello 1993). Those who lack either the experience in this learning or

context

the

skills

value

tively team

role

the

will

leaders,

work.

cooperative ment is

the

to

valuing

this

that

assumption

or disad

and

stressing Central

posi

member

a major

at

be

with not

do

a team

of

in a society

vantage

associated

or who

interaction,

group

argu

education

should prepare students for professional life. Of course, this argument is applied Some

inconsistently.

work

trend

of

examples

is the type of cooperative

that we

to

is a growing

are

class

which

inherent

in

replicate

the on

glass

ceiling

some

individuals

grade, preferential sons and daughters

not desire

classroom

a

include that

grades

prevents

a high

from making treatment of

of

aspects

life that educators would

friends

to the given or alumni,

a

dress code requirement. rigid of organizational these aspects Although are as life generally regarded unappeal or even teams abusive, using usually ing as a valuable is regarded and legitimate and

for

mechanism corporate

Using fied

for

and

reasons

development

achieve

success.

group projects other

student motivation 1994);

students

helping individual

has been

as well:

(Nichols of

justi

increasing

and Miller individual 57

1995);

and MacAlpine

(Oldfield

responsibility

co-constructing

result

as

knowledge

of member

interactions

that

a

pro

duce new viewpoints 1978); (Vygotsky democratic skills and citizen improving and 1995); (Fertig ship education skills

improving

for

1995). It should

and

not be assumed are

assignments.

that such in group

inherent

and

Smagorinsky

must

effective

and

communication

nication

relevant for

strategies

of stu

teach

group

not

necessarily

stress

teams

and

dents often ula

or no

little

to

members.

Vik

instructors

do

the

in team projects

students

skills

the

develop

more

team

"[F]ew

effective

Educators often cite individual respon sibility as a primary advantage of group of

because

the

hate" has been about group work stems

attitude

in part,

resulting,

bers.

tutoring Because

negotiation, management work,

students

the have

1981). This

the feeling

that group

implies a loss of individual control

work time

from

and

previously

less

the

from

competent

skills

in

leadership, are tied because

acquired

cooperative

to spend group mem

allocating

students'

an

2. Giving

all that

would

involve

dents

not

sensible

contribute

3. Although

factors

motivator,

as

formance

has as

ception

times

confident 5. Some

as much

unfair;

who

problem

some

may

and or

some

have

those skills, feelings

All

is a

and

per per some

the to

least the

concern

trators,

both

instructors

the

most

actually

competition.

of whom

are

and

described adminis

responsible

is

of het

reason, as

suggested

this

Yet,

some

practice

an

singles

lack skills

these

cases,

students students,

special

members.

group

One

exam

into

several

work

groups (Rosser 1998). Although educa tors do admit that the isolation of minori and

low

performers

cause

could

these

students to be fired by the group or to drop out of class (Felder and Brent 2001; the Rosser 1998), they acknowledge of "The the problem: intractability minorities will often find themselves iso lated in workgroups on the job, and they may as well start learning how to deal with it while still in college" (Felder and Brent 2001, 70). The issue is whether or not to simulate the problems of the work more

at accurately and methodological recent Educators' focus

the

fairness

of

expense rigor.

on

these

prob

lems has prompted the emergence of a significant body of work concerned with finding

ways

to negotiate in implementing

the minefields group

grad

ing schemes (Cheng and Warren 2000; Goldfinch and Raeside 1990; Kroll, and Mau 1992; Lejk, Wyvill, Masingila, and Farrow 1996; Maranto and Gresham 1998; Sheeran 1994). One interesting approach

for

class

engineering

encountered

of the alleged problems

should

an

ties

stu

example,

can

this

ple of such a quandary is the decision to split a small group of female students in

teamwork

give

presentation. assessment factors dishonesty

projects.

lower

and

(Sheeran 1994, 20) of

or minority

strategy

perceived to do with

for

group.

grouping

"essential element"

world

contributed

solving

erogeneous

Pitt's

a disad

and may

performance

be

student

on

being

In

and contribution to the group are hard to define and essentially impossible to fairly. students

vary

consequence

For

academically,

of marks

such

in a bad

at risk

less.

the allocation

grades

work

a natural

be

talent.

random

give

group

could

are

the weaker

having

that more

suggesting

or

the same mark

students a

means

groups

example,

to

in terms of individual student tal

effec

grades

groups

some

and

advantage

can

out and isolates students who

conclusions

whether

are difficult

group

From

in general will

error.

measurement

Under

with

following

projects,

random.

measurement

about

desires

individual at odds

For

widely ent,

on

(239-40)

relationship in group

may

chal

essay

of selecting

systematic,

promote

communication,

to success

are

often

learning. the

at

selected

to maximize

manage. to

expected.

theory,

systems,

perspective, are drawn:

need

and

students

tive

assess "group

to indicate

(Sorensen

in these

4. Rating

term

that many

convey individual

critical

the highest

are,

is not

view

the

coined

attitude

negative

This

in fact,

held;

universally

member's

group

to peers.

the

or

member,

group

highest

concerned

Instructors

the

of the lowest group

Some of these problems

vantage.

activities.

accountability

to receive

the a member

on

grade

appear

assign

teamwork

in requires training in how to work teams" (2001, 112). Often, instructors to simply lack the time or knowledge students properly for group prepare

work

of

groups

than

and

be

should

tenets

group

grade

cast from the group project of game theory, Pitt (2000) perspective concludes that problems with group the

the

1996),

resistance

a

a population,

describe

(1995,

violate

learning, court. In

grade

essentially

debase

grad

motivation,

generate

in

a litany

group

unfair,

messages,

accountability,

1.Any method

neces

effective

it directly:

said much

but

curric

specific

become

and

teams,

stu

that

require

frequently

in

of work

importance

participate

provide to help

sary

the

incorrect

assessment

greater

of critical-thinking skills development than traditional lectures. McKendall that modern business (2000) argued schools

reports,

to

assign

member,

assessment

groups

provide

are

assign are

they

com

grade one

validity and reliability will have serious problems accepting grading methods that

about

undermine

lenged

to be effective. According to Garside's research (1996), group discussion alone does

Group

to Kagan

grades

group,

a mean

even

complaints

cooperative

commu

discussion

group

entire

basis of performance

have discovered

with

deal

instructors

instructors

in Grading

student

plaints. to an using

reaction.

ing. According

Fly

models

provide

to employ

aversive

Researchers of

a Vygotskian per employing in their students' spective analyzing small group discussions, concluded that

dents

this

and must When

of grading

and defense

the justification methods

with no thought given to dispersion. Some

a group

Problems

Tario

(1993),

instructors

as

Performance

outcomes

positive

leadership,

Stefani,

(Butcher,

it is the prospect of being evaluat or by a group that engen

rather, ed ders

communication,

presentation,

organization, so on and

of self-efficacy may be particularly low, thereby exacerbating antipathy for group work. Still, for many students, it is not the group work per se that is distasteful;

selves

is assign

to have a

grade

58

the

students or

portion

them of

a

COLLEGETEACHING

Numerous grade. in this strategy. a to the grade

exist

possibilities

entire

that

group

Another

one in which publicly

on

variation

that

assign

personal

class

theme

sites.

is

students either privately or feedback on the other

performances who

instructor,

then

the

assigns can

members

group

Finally,

to

directly

the

grades.

be

or

the

require

most

educators

can

dents.

or

equally termined

to group

awarded

to prede

rules

are involved

When

group members

evaluating it can be

the performance that an argued

instructional

of

their

in

peers,

abandonment has

responsibility

of

occurred.

If a grade complaint alleging unfairness the

filed,

cannot

instructor

be

to rep stu

of

In addition to the disadvantages this technique tends to foster discussed,

members

unequally according or criteria.

to attempt of a group

is

confident

performing

This

tactic

appeals

he or she was

conclude: "The one who gets fired may have a lot of trouble and generally, he

can

not

be

deliber

this process

Second,

error. Well-liked

to halo

prone

dents,

in group

present

or evaluations.

stu

ethnically stu apprehensive

and students, divergent dents be may subconsciously characteristics their

performances

by

trained

about

equately

ly, in a system number

members

grade

the

ratings

fail to participate to work,

the

or

sub

conspiracy.

with

discussed

earlier,

the many or

in some

bly result lems.

members

group

Attempts two these

grades. assign ance between

disadvantages

level

a bal

each

allow

on of

number

lack

the

skills

the

the

of

teamwork

the

preceding

can

conclusions

use

of

work

benefits

and

to

Vol. 53/No.

2

59

benefit

drawn.

can

When

communication

necessary

be

groups

educational circumstances.

a

discussion,

yield under

students teamwork from

group

to use

groups

emic

preparation

dismiss

for

assignments while

into

could several

divide areas

of

an

product directly observed rather

than of

of

the

grades.

that is product

or process by the instructor is difficult defend.

the

Moreover,

Group

can

projects

be

used

for

tional or formative work while tests/reports

of

(Reedy

room

activities

need

fact,

significant

founda

individual

to a summa

contribute

only

tive assessment

1995). All

not

some

of

is possible acad the

focusing

topic responsi

bility then reported on by individual members. When the individual's work is fully integrated into the overall group

class

In graded. accrue from

be

advantages

Sometimes

such

nongraded

assignments.

activities

freedom of honest permit that might otherwise be concerns are grading not necessarily to have to be transferable. In many

when Skills

present.

do

evaluated the can

ments

team

of

advantages be

realized

without

assign to

the need

solve all of the entanglements of group This is grading. approach particularly when

a class

enter

students

class those

not

cooperative member.

appear

against

group

members

written

work

effects.

to reward

avoiding

a

to can

inducement

that

put

its own

ask

groups

Requiring names

their similar

grading in out-of-class

has

for sanc

provides

riding.

have

to

pressure

an

free

role,

group

specific social

is

group an oral

presents

Although

involvement

to

way

free-riding

learning

tions

skills

devoted

while

a student

prepared

cooperative

ings can

a

of

concerning or topic,

activity,

be

the only

learning

When

report

cannot

with

skills.

are

Grades

that

to

demonstration

in such cases ismuch more

grade validity difficult.

teaching

of

recol

reports.

time

and

individual

or

or grading

observation

reinforcement

assigned

the

through comments

by students direct

a

by the instruc

filtered

student

on

based

and when

and

approaches

avoid

least

the requisite group

(Kroll, grade on individual performance and Mau 1992). Reporting Masingila, groups

it is at

useful

alternatives

but

even

product,

out possessing

own

It often

group

address

disadvantages

the

the

grading

to concen

instructor

to aban

really

described.

the grading pitfalls?

Based

significant certain

already are some

using

on

responsibilities

of

it may

circumstances, an

for

members,

cases,

so

is it appropriate

tactic

What

approaches proba set of prob of each

on

group

be

lack of

coldly

best

impossible

it

unwilling

and

to assign their or combined

some

maintain

Suggestions

First,

nor

students

be

expression

students

communication

not

does

professional

allow

as

1980). To

Compromise

may

to provide

don

than

skills,

the problem,

are

perspec

cultural diversity,

students

problem

Generally speaking, then, group projects are graded by assigning a group grade to all members,

other

such

(McCroskey

dif

in group assignments

communication

inflate their

this

that when

reasons

apprehension,

competi are no limits

no

communication

understand

ness

in a conscious

to

get

72). There

taking

Experienced

instructors

because

there

evaluation

tive.

is for

on high grades, students may conscious

with

problems

often

part

other

some

to down

of

who

it makes

assignments,

available,

others

Students

to them" (2001,

inclined

where

of each

Final

only a limited

of

performance are

issues.

remaining

ference

are made be

themselves

tion. Conversely,

of quality are inad who

such

grades may

the

peers

in which

of high

team

they

than

other

on

rated

care.

doesn't

[sic]

Brent

and

that point are usually failing the course If they get zeros on the [anyway].

students,

argumentative

still

absent

terminated

Felder

a mark

remains

effort.

certain

Grading

to student participants when they first learn about it but creates difficulties later. In reviewing problems experienced by students,

that from

summary,

grade

group

Under

lections

that the grade was fairly arrived at when ations

the overall

tor,

unhealthy interpersonal relationships. common One in team strategy assign ments is to allow to fire poorly groups members.

enhance

if that means assigning a single grade to all members. Although the grade may not accurately reflect the individual work of

avoid

should

In

grade. a

perspective

trate

work.

Second,

a assigning single grade resent the performance

be

prerequi

communication

leadership that can be used as part of the prerequisite

this

likely will

of success of the individual member, which is directly related to the quality of

in group coursework provide small and group dynamics,

discussion,

proportion of bonus points based on the overall quality of the final project, which then

individual's

development

to take

students

itmost

product,

skills a part of the current

Fortunately,

departments

a

given

down.

breaks

system make

should

of appropriate

provide

members'

the

assignments, Educators

is modi

fied by the individual member's rating.

with

can

instructor

The

problems, to monitor

on

positive on members group the

meet

instructor attendance

with

consequent

effects.

grading

Atten

not

will

members selves

with

because course

are

they

them

of

reactions

negative

members, lowing

to concern

need

fol

ever,

simply

of can

dents

of group

work

approach.

By

is the

"cards

engaging

stu

accrue.

advantages

Business

and

on

high premium argument should make.

industry

such

place

a

that the easy to be

should

inocu

lated against potential problems. Students are less likely to attempt free riding when has

that practice and

been

students

appreciate

concerning

class

Finally, due

notice

to question

ing procedures. comes early

have

the

class. the

in the

enough

students who

dislike

and

opportunity

Of

grad

fair

warning semester that

group work to

select

will

another

the primary intention of to mute is not simply poten

course,

instructor

tial complaints but also to help students understand that the values of group work a

involve and

trade-off

between If

complications.

the

benefits are

students

con

vinced by this cost/benefit analysis, they will enter into group work with greater enthusiasm

and

Academic

scribes be

free

and

practices

procedures tices related erate

chairs

over

procedures are defensible.

student

involve

faculty members

rein

to group

as

placed

in

some

Moreover,

may grading For example,

violate

those prac

may which

gen then

Department the awkward

position of defending faculty with which they themselves agree.

as

long

grading

complaints, be

classroom

Still,

administrators. may

pre

generally

that university

accorded

aspects

university it is common for

different

markedly

teachers -.

procedures

work,

group

evaluating

problems

with a lack of instructional and with varying student equivalency associated

can

be

encountered.

some

forms

of group

evaluation

and

suggestions

alternative

procedures

in this article,

discussed

to take

then it may of

advantage

administrative

be

the opportuni

practices do not of

teams

groups,

An

earlier

presented Association

at

November

2004.

in Chicago,

convention

in

IL,

K. A.

Collaborative

education,

Higher

authority of Johns Hopkins Butcher, Tario.

1993.

A.

C, 1995.

Cheng, W., difference: students'

University L. A. J. Stefani, of peer-, Analysis

self-

in group project 2:165-85.

and M. Warren. peers Using contributions

Teaching R. M.,

Felder,

and R.

2000. to assess

and

work.

a Making individual

to a group project. 5:243-55.

Education Brent.

2001.

for cooperative learning. and Collaboration 10 (2): 69-75. lege Teaching 1995. Teaching collaborative Fertig, G. strategies

of Cooperation

to enhance

the development Southern Social

Effective Journal in Col skills

of effective Studies

cit

Journal

21:53-64. Garside,

C

of

lecture

who's and

policies.

in devveloping strategies skills. Communication

universi

212-27.

talking: A com discussion group critical Education

Using riding in and Science

31:789-91. 1980. Quiet children not hurting. helping, Education 29:239-44.

in the

J. C.

McCroskey, classroom:

On

munication

M.

McKendall, become

Com to

2000.

groups Teaching Journal of Education 75:277-82.

teams.

for

J., and P. G

Jr. 1998. Coop

Cottell,

learning for higher education faculty. AZ: Oryx Press. Phoenix, J. D., and R. B. Miller. 1994. Coop Nichols,

Oldfield, 1995. tiary ment

and

learning

student

Educational

motivation. Psychology

and J. M. K. MacAlpine. A., at the ter and self-assessment

K. Peer

level?an and

report. Assess experiential in Higher Evaluation Education

Pitt, M.

the J. 2000. The application of games assessment. ory to group project Teaching in Higher Education 5:233-41.

R. 1995. Reedy, assessment: A grading-reporting

thinking 45:

Formative

and

summative

alternative possible dilemma. NAASP

to

the

Bul

letin 79 (573): 47-51. Rosser,

S. V.

1998. and

engineering,

work Group mathematics:

in science, Conse

of ignoring and race. Col gender 46 (3): 82-88. lege Teaching T. J. 1994. Measuring and evaluating Sheeran, in cooperative student learning settings: and alternatives. Social Practices, options, Science Record 31:20-24. quences

Slavin, 1996. Look

1998.

free

20:125-32.

and V. N.

in Education

in Higher

izens.

MD:

Baltimore, Press.

knowledge.

staff-assessment

group Politics

erative

learning: and the

interdependence

Education

R., and A. Gresham. to fight series shares" PS: Political projects.

Contemporary 19:167-78.

REFERENCES Brufee,

in Higher

Evaluation

B. Millis, erative

was this manuscript the National Communication of

version

the mark.

(8): 68-71.

J. A. individual mem 1993. Improving Mello, set in small work group ber accountability Education of Management tings. Journal 17:253-59.

NOTE

parison group

work

grading,

miss

solv 1992. Grading cooperative problem Teacher 85:619-27. ing. Mathematics and S. Farrow. 1996. A Lejk, M., M. Wyvill, of deriving of methods individual survey Assessment from group assessments. grades

Business

problems.

words:

Key

Co.

the group-grades 1996. Avoiding 24 (4): 56-58. trap. Learning and S. T. Mau. Kroll, D. L., J. O. Masingila,

Maranto, "world

are apprised of the

if faculty

thermore,

Book

21:267-81.

fur

and,

15:210-31.

R. T. Johnson, and K. A. D. W., 1998. Active learning: Cooperation Inter in the college classroom. Edina, MN:

and

as a discussion item. If instructors agenda are aware of the dangers associated with

Assessment

commitment. freedom

several

Education

Higher Johnson, Smith. action

receiving

discuss

the

when

Finally,

opment

S. 1995. Group Kagan, grades 52 Educational Leadership

ties and values of group work while associated and reducing pedagogical

activities

and

Ideally,

position

easier

grading methods. Participants will be less likely to complain or challenge grades if and fair they have had fair warning opportunity

an

place

exposed,

discussed,

in class.

condemned

could awkward

College faculty should consider plac ing group grading on department meeting

skills in team

students

Second,

also an

in

a

assigning How

1990. Devel J., and R. Raeside. for of a peer assessment technique on a group marks individual obtaining in and Evaluation Assessment project.

Goldfinch,

per

student).

degree

policy

expectations

the prac

these skills be relatively

tices.

for

be

it is applied to group grading prac

when maintain

stu

First,

to accept

be persuaded

tical values of developing work.

the

as

(such

to a master's

administrator

policies.

not

students

assistants

teaching

dents in forthright discussions about the difficulties and rewards of group work, a number

policy class

that

to assign grades. Generally, this is intended to prevent abuses of

mitted

absent

Perhaps the most powerful tool at the disposal of the instructor for palliating the disadvantages on the table"

to mandate

ties

dance policies do not involve judgments on the part of student peers, and group

R.

E.

1990.

Point-counterpoint:

Ability cooperative grouping, learning and the gifted. Journal the Education for 3-8, 28-30. 14(1): of the Gifted P., and Smagorinsky, social environment

60

P. K. of

the

1993. Fly. classroom:

The A

COLLEGETEACHING

Vygotskian

perspective Communication

process. 159-71. Sorensen, reaction

S. M.

Vol. 53/No.

on

1981. Group-hate: work. Paper

to group

2

61

small

Education A

group 42:

negative

presented

at

of the International the meeting Communi MN. cation Association, Minneapolis, more to teach team Vik, G. N. 2001. Doing to sink or swim. work than telling students Business

Communication

Quarterly

64:112-19. Vygotsky,

L.

S.

1978. Mind

higher MA: processes. Cambridge, versity Press. development

of

in society:

The

psychological Harvard Uni