Post on 27-Jun-2020
Problems Associated with Evaluating Student Performance in GroupsAuthor(s): Paul E. King and Ralph R. BehnkeSource: College Teaching, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Spring, 2005), pp. 57-61Published 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 unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay 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 andhttp://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 printedpage of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Heldref Publications and Taylor & Francis, Ltd. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to College Teaching.
http://www.jstor.org
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH
EVALUATING STUDENT
PERFORMANCE IN GROUPS
Paul E. King and Ralph R. Behnke
Abstract, Using small groups in student cooperative
learning enterprises has become a major trend in
American higher education (Cheng and Warren 2000). However, several practical issues involving the assess
ment of an individual's performance in groups have
sometimes created resistance to the method from both
students and parents (Kagan 1995). This article eval uates the case for using cooperative group assignments and the problems associated with evaluating the per formances of individuals working in groups. Practical
suggestions for minimizing some of the potential
problems associated with group grading are offered
and some philosophic perspectives on this form of
grading are advanced.
There
is a growing trend toward
using cooperative learning strate
gies in many academic disciplines,
including business communication, bio
logical and physical sciences, computer
programming, engineering, mathematics,
music, social studies, English literature,
and others (for reviews, see Brufee 1993;
Johnson, Johnson, and Smith 1998; Mil
lis and Cottell 1998; Slavin 1990). Coop erative learning takes many forms. Two
of the most common are peer tutoring
Paul E. King and Ralph R. Behnke are professors of communication studies at Texas Christian University.
and group investigation (Kroll, Masingi la, and Mau 1992). In peer tutoring,
experienced students help others who
have not yet mastered a task. Peer tutor
ing is used primarily with beginning stu
dents but has some potential for expan
sion. Group investigation involves
students cooperating to solve a problem
or complete a task that they have not
mastered independently. Tasks that
involve constructing an engineering
model, interpreting and offering recom
mendations on a case study in a business
class, or planning and presenting a per
suasive campaign in a communication
class are examples of this second form,
which is the type of cooperative learning that we primarily address.
A noteworthy argument in favor of
using cooperative learning is that it is
ecologically valid. Students should
expect to spend significant portions of their lives working in groups, teams, and
committees (Mello 1993). Those who
lack either the experience in this learning context or the skills associated with
group interaction, or who do not posi
tively value the role of a team member or
team leaders, will be at a major disad
vantage in a society stressing and valuing
cooperative work. Central to this argu
ment is the assumption that education
should prepare students for professional life. Of course, this argument is applied
inconsistently. Some inherent aspects of
work life that educators would not desire to replicate in the classroom include a
glass ceiling on grades that prevents
some individuals from making a high grade, preferential treatment given to the
sons and daughters of friends or alumni,
and a rigid dress code requirement.
Although these aspects of organizational
life generally are regarded as unappeal
ing or even abusive, using teams usually
is regarded as a valuable and legitimate
mechanism for helping students achieve
corporate and individual success.
Using group projects has been justi fied for other reasons as well: increasing
student motivation (Nichols and Miller
1994); development of individual
Vol. 53/No. 2 57
responsibility (Oldfield and MacAlpine 1995); co-constructing knowledge as a
result of member interactions that pro
duce new viewpoints (Vygotsky 1978);
improving democratic skills and citizen
ship education (Fertig 1995); and
improving skills for communication,
organization, presentation, leadership,
and so on (Butcher, Stefani, and Tario
1995). It should not be assumed that such
positive outcomes are inherent in group
assignments. Smagorinsky and Fly
(1993), employing a Vygotskian per
spective in analyzing their students'
small group discussions, concluded that
instructors must provide models of
effective communication and teach stu
dents to employ relevant group commu
nication strategies for discussion groups
to be effective. According to Garside's
research (1996), group discussion alone
does not necessarily provide greater
development of critical-thinking skills
than traditional lectures. McKendall
(2000) argued that modern business
schools stress the importance of work in
teams and frequently require that stu
dents participate in team projects but
often provide little or no specific curric
ula to help students develop the neces
sary skills to become effective team
members. Vik said it directly: "[F]ew instructors do much more than assign
the teams, and effective teamwork
requires training in how to work in
teams" (2001, 112). Often, instructors
simply lack the time or knowledge to
prepare students properly for group activities.
Educators often cite individual respon
sibility as a primary advantage of group work because of the group member's
accountability to peers. This view is not
universally held; in fact, the term "group
hate" has been coined to indicate the
negative attitude that many students have
about group work (Sorensen 1981). This attitude stems from the feeling that group
work implies a loss of individual control
resulting, in part, from the need to spend
time tutoring less competent group mem
bers. Because skills in communication,
negotiation, leadership, and relationship
management are tied to success in group
work, and because students may not have
previously acquired those skills, feelings
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;
rather, it is the prospect of being evaluat
ed as a group or by a group that engen
ders this aversive reaction.
Problems in Grading Group Performance
Researchers have discovered a litany of student complaints about group grad
ing. According to Kagan (1995, 1996),
group grades are unfair, debase grade
reports, undermine motivation, convey
incorrect messages, violate individual
accountability, generate resistance to
cooperative learning, and often are chal
lenged in court. In a critical essay on
group project assessment cast from the
perspective of game theory, Pitt (2000) concludes that problems with group assessment should be expected. Under
the tenets of the theory, students' desires
to receive the highest individual grades are, in these systems, at odds with effec
tive cooperative learning. From Pitt's
perspective, the following conclusions
are drawn:
1. Any method of selecting groups and
allocating projects, whether random or
systematic, in general will give some
groups an advantage and some a disad
vantage.
2. Giving all students the same mark means that a sensible group strategy
would involve having the weaker stu
dents contribute less.
3. Although the allocation of marks is a
motivator, factors such as teamwork
and contribution to the group are hard to define and essentially impossible to assess fairly.
4. Rating students on some perceived per
formance has as much to do with per
ception as performance and may some
times be unfair; for example, the student who contributed least to the
problem solving may give the most
confident presentation.
5. Some assessment factors can actually
promote dishonesty and competition.
(239-40)
All of the alleged problems described should concern instructors and adminis
trators, both of whom are responsible for
the justification and defense of grading methods and must deal with grade com
plaints. When instructors assign one grade
to an entire group, they are essentially
using a mean to describe a population,
with no thought given to dispersion. Some
instructors assign the group grade on the
basis of performance of the lowest group member, the highest group member, or
even a member selected at random.
Instructors concerned about measurement
validity and reliability will have serious
problems accepting grading methods that
appear to maximize measurement error.
Some of these problems are difficult to
manage. For example, groups can vary
widely in terms of individual student tal
ent, suggesting that more work and lower
grades could be a natural consequence of
being in a bad group. For this reason, het
erogeneous grouping is suggested as an
"essential element" (Sheeran 1994, 20) of
group projects. Yet, this practice singles
out and isolates students who lack skills or talent. In some cases, these students
are at risk academically, special students,
or minority group members. One exam
ple of such a quandary is the decision to
split a small group of female students in an engineering class into several work
groups (Rosser 1998). Although educa
tors do admit that the isolation of minori
ties and low performers could cause these
students to be fired by the group or to
drop out of class (Felder and Brent 2001; Rosser 1998), they acknowledge the
intractability of the problem: "The
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
world more accurately at the expense of
fairness and methodological rigor.
Educators' recent focus on these prob
lems has prompted the emergence of a
significant body of work concerned with
finding ways to negotiate the minefields
encountered in implementing group grad
ing schemes (Cheng and Warren 2000; Goldfinch and Raeside 1990; Kroll,
Masingila, and Mau 1992; Lejk, Wyvill, and Farrow 1996; Maranto and Gresham
1998; Sheeran 1994). One interesting
approach is to have the students them
selves assign a grade or portion of a
58 COLLEGE TEACHING
grade. Numerous possibilities exist with
in this strategy. The instructor can assign a grade to the entire group that is modi
fied by the individual member's personal
rating. Another variation on that theme is
one in which students either privately or
publicly provide feedback on the other
members' performances directly to the
instructor, who then assigns the grades.
Finally, group members can be given a
proportion of bonus points based on the overall quality of the final project, which can then be awarded to group members
equally or unequally according to prede
termined rules or criteria.
When group members are involved in
evaluating the performance of their peers,
it can be argued that an abandonment of
instructional responsibility has occurred.
If a grade complaint alleging unfairness is
filed, the instructor cannot be confident
that the grade was fairly arrived at when
he or she was not present in group deliber
ations or evaluations. Second, this process
can be prone to halo error. Well-liked stu
dents, argumentative students, ethnically
divergent students, and apprehensive stu
dents may be subconsciously rated on
characteristics other than the quality of
their performances by peers who are inad
equately trained about such issues. Final
ly, in a system in which only a limited
number of high grades are made available,
team members may be inclined to down
grade the performance of others because
they themselves are part of the competi
tion. Conversely, where there are no limits
on high grades, students may inflate their
ratings of each other in a conscious or sub
conscious evaluation conspiracy.
Generally speaking, then, group projects are graded by assigning a group grade to
all members, with the many disadvantages
discussed earlier, or group members may
assign grades. Attempts to provide a bal
ance between these two approaches proba
bly result in some level of each set of prob
lems.
Suggestions
Based on the preceding discussion, a
number of conclusions can be drawn.
First, the use of work groups can yield
significant educational benefits under
certain circumstances. When students
lack the communication and teamwork
skills necessary to benefit from group
assignments, the system breaks down.
Educators should make the development
of appropriate skills a part of the current
class or require students to take prerequi
sites. Fortunately, most communication
departments provide coursework in group
discussion, small group dynamics, and
leadership that can be used as part of the
prerequisite work.
Second, educators should avoid
assigning a single grade to attempt to rep
resent the performance of a group of stu
dents. In addition to the disadvantages discussed, this technique tends to foster
unhealthy interpersonal relationships.
One common strategy in team assign ments is to allow groups to fire poorly
performing members. This tactic appeals
to student participants when they first
learn about it but creates difficulties later. In reviewing problems experienced by terminated students, Felder and Brent
conclude: "The one who gets fired may have a lot of trouble and generally, he
[sic] doesn't care. Students who get to
that point are usually failing the course
[anyway]. If they get zeros on the
remaining assignments, it makes no dif
ference to them" (2001, 72). There are
some problems with taking this perspec
tive. Experienced communication
instructors understand that when students
fail to participate in group assignments it
often is for reasons other than unwilling ness to work, such as communication
apprehension, cultural diversity, lack of
communication skills, and so on
(McCroskey 1980). To coldly dismiss
problem students does not really address
the problem, nor is it appropriate to aban
don professional responsibilities and
allow students to assign their own grades.
Compromise or combined approaches
maintain some of the disadvantages of
each tactic already described.
What are some of the alternatives that
allow using teamwork but avoid some of
the grading pitfalls? It often is possible to use groups for assignments and acad
emic preparation while focusing the
grade on individual performance (Kroll,
Masingila, and Mau 1992). Reporting groups could divide an assigned topic
into several areas of individual responsi
bility then reported on by individual
members. When the individual's work is
fully integrated into the overall group
product, it most likely will enhance that individual's grade. In summary, from
this perspective a grade remains a mark
of success of the individual member, which is directly related to the quality of the overall group effort.
Under certain circumstances, it may
still be best for an instructor to concen
trate on grading the group product, even
if that means assigning a single grade to
all members. Although the grade may not
accurately reflect the individual work of
group members, it is at least based on a
product directly observed by the instruc
tor, rather than filtered through the recol
lections of student comments or reports.
Grading by students or grading that is absent direct observation of the product or process by the instructor is difficult to
defend. Moreover, the demonstration of
grade validity in such cases is much more
difficult.
Group projects can be used for founda
tional or formative work while individual
tests/reports only contribute to a summa
tive assessment (Reedy 1995). All class room activities need not be graded. In
fact, significant advantages accrue from
nongraded assignments. Sometimes such
activities permit freedom of honest
expression that might otherwise be
impossible when grading concerns are
present. Skills do not necessarily have to
be evaluated to be transferable. In many
cases, the advantages of team assign
ments can be realized without the need to
solve all of the entanglements of group
grading. This approach is particularly useful when students enter a class with
out possessing the requisite group skills
and when class time cannot be devoted to
teaching those skills.
Grades are not the only way to reward
cooperative learning while avoiding reinforcement of a free-riding group
member. When a student presents an oral
report concerning a specific group role,
activity, or topic, social pressure to
appear prepared is an inducement for
cooperative learning that provides sanc
tions against free riding. Requiring
group members to put their names on
written work can have similar positive
effects. Although grading members on
involvement in out-of-class group meet
ings has its own problems, the instructor
can ask groups to monitor attendance
Vol. 53/No. 2 59
with consequent grading effects. Atten
dance policies do not involve judgments on the part of student peers, and group
members will not need to concern them
selves with negative reactions of absent
members, because they are simply fol
lowing course policies.
Perhaps the most powerful tool at the
disposal of the instructor for palliating the
disadvantages of group work is the "cards
on the table" approach. By engaging stu
dents in forthright discussions about the
difficulties and rewards of group work, a
number of advantages accrue. First, stu
dents can be persuaded to accept the prac
tical values of developing skills in team
work. Business and industry place such a
high premium on these skills that the
argument should be relatively easy to
make. Second, students should be inocu
lated against potential problems. Students are less likely to attempt free riding when
that practice has been discussed, exposed,
and condemned in class.
Finally, students appreciate receiving
due notice concerning class activities and
grading methods. Participants will be less
likely to complain or challenge grades if
they have had fair warning and fair
opportunity to question and discuss grad
ing procedures. Ideally, the fair warning comes early enough in the semester that
students who dislike group work will
have the opportunity to select another
class. Of course, the primary intention of
the instructor is not simply to mute poten
tial complaints but also to help students
understand that the values of group work
involve a trade-off between the benefits
and complications. If students are con
vinced by this cost/benefit analysis, they will enter into group work with greater enthusiasm and commitment.
Academic freedom generally pre
scribes that university faculty members be accorded free rein over classroom
practices and procedures as long as those
procedures are defensible. Still, prac
tices related to group grading may gen
erate student complaints, which then
involve administrators. Department
chairs may be placed in the awkward
position of defending faculty practices with which they themselves do not
agree. Moreover, some aspects of group
grading may violate university policies.
For example, it is common for universi
ties to mandate that students not be per
mitted to assign grades. Generally, this
policy is intended to prevent abuses of
teaching assistants (such as assigning a
class to a master's degree student). How
ever, the policy also could place an
administrator in an awkward position
when it is applied to group grading prac tices. Finally, when several teachers
maintain markedly different procedures
for evaluating group work, problems
associated with a lack of instructional
equivalency and with varying student
expectations can be encountered.
College faculty should consider plac
ing group grading on department meeting
agenda as a discussion item. If instructors
are aware of the dangers associated with
some forms of group evaluation and, fur
thermore, if faculty are apprised of the
suggestions and alternative procedures
discussed in this article, then it may be
easier to take advantage of the opportuni
ties and values of group work while
reducing associated pedagogical and
administrative problems.
Key words: grading, work groups, teams
NOTE An earlier version of this manuscript was
presented at the National Communication
Association convention in Chicago, IL, in
November 2004.
REFERENCES
Brufee, K. A. 1993. Collaborative learning:
Higher education, interdependence and the
authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Butcher, A. C, L. A. J. Stefani, and V. N.
Tario. 1995. Analysis of peer-, self- and
staff-assessment in group project work.
Assessment in Education 2:165-85.
Cheng, W., and M. Warren. 2000. Making a
difference: Using peers to assess individual
students' contributions to a group project.
Teaching in Higher Education 5:243-55.
Felder, R. M., and R. Brent. 2001. Effective
strategies for cooperative learning. Journal
of Cooperation and Collaboration in Col
lege Teaching 10 (2): 69-75.
Fertig, G. 1995. Teaching collaborative skills
to enhance the development of effective cit
izens. Southern Social Studies Journal
21:53-64.
Garside, C 1996. Look who's talking: A com
parison of lecture and group discussion
strategies in devveloping critical thinking skills. Communication Education 45:
212-27.
Goldfinch, J., and R. Raeside. 1990. Devel
opment of a peer assessment technique for
obtaining individual marks on a group
project. Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education 15:210-31.
Johnson, D. W., R. T. Johnson, and K. A.
Smith. 1998. Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Inter
action Book Co.
Kagan, S. 1995. Group grades miss the mark.
Educational Leadership 52 (8): 68-71.
-. 1996. Avoiding the group-grades
trap. Learning 24 (4): 56-58.
Kroll, D. L., J. O. Masingila, and S. T. Mau.
1992. Grading cooperative problem solv
ing. Mathematics Teacher 85:619-27.
Lejk, M., M. Wyvill, and S. Farrow. 1996. A
survey of methods of deriving individual
grades from group assessments. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education
21:267-81.
Maranto, R., and A. Gresham. 1998. Using "world series shares" to fight free riding in
group projects. PS: Political Science and
Politics 31:789-91.
McCroskey, J. C. 1980. Quiet children in the
classroom: On helping, not hurting. Com
munication Education 29:239-44.
McKendall, M. 2000. Teaching groups to
become teams. Journal of Education for Business 75:277-82.
Mello, J. A. 1993. Improving individual mem
ber accountability in small work group set
tings. Journal of Management Education
17:253-59.
Millis, B. J., and P. G Cottell, Jr. 1998. Coop erative learning for higher education faculty.
Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.
Nichols, J. D., and R. B. Miller. 1994. Coop erative learning and student motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology 19:167-78.
Oldfield, K. A., and J. M. K. MacAlpine. 1995. Peer and self-assessment at the ter
tiary level?an experiential report. Assess
ment and Evaluation in Higher Education
20:125-32.
Pitt, M. J. 2000. The application of games the
ory to group project assessment. Teaching in Higher Education 5:233-41.
Reedy, R. 1995. Formative and summative
assessment: A possible alternative to the
grading-reporting dilemma. NAASP Bul
letin 79 (573): 47-51. Rosser, S. V. 1998. Group work in science,
engineering, and mathematics: Conse
quences of ignoring gender and race. Col
lege Teaching 46 (3): 82-88.
Sheeran, T. J. 1994. Measuring and evaluating student learning in cooperative settings:
Practices, options, and alternatives. Social
Science Record 31:20-24.
Slavin, R. E. 1990. Point-counterpoint:
Ability grouping, cooperative learning and the gifted. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted 14(1): 3-8, 28-30.
Smagorinsky, P., and P. K. Fly. 1993. The
social environment of the classroom: A
60 COLLEGE TEACHING
Vygotskian perspective on small group
process. Communication Education 42:
159-71.
Sorensen, S. M. 1981. Group-hate: A negative reaction to group work. Paper presented at
the meeting of the International Communi
cation Association, Minneapolis, MN.
Vik, G. N. 2001. Doing more to teach team
work than telling students to sink or swim.
Business Communication Quarterly
64:112-19.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni
versity Press.
Vol. 53/No. 2 61