Assessment Rubric for a Collaborative Group Report
Resources for Group Work
compiled by Elizabeth A. Lehfeldt, Cleveland State University
General considerations; a good introduction to the concept; good bibliography
Also general considerations; with additional links to good resources
Excellent, comprehensive guide to the steps of incorporating group work into your course
Very hands-on advice and instructions for group work resulting in collaborative writing
Group work, practically applied in an actual course
Assessment Rubric for a Collaborative Group Report
|Point Value |Outstanding |Good |Developing |Beginning |
| | 5 | 4 - 3 | 2 | 1 |
|Communication |Shares many ideas related to |Freely shares ideas. |Shares ideas when encouraged. |Does not share ideas. |
| |the goals. |Listens to others. |Allows sharing by all group |Watches but does not contribute to |
| |Encourages all group members |Considers other people's |members. |discussions. |
| |to share their ideas. |feelings and ideas. |Listens to others. |Does not show consideration for others.|
| |Listens attentively to | |Considers other people's | |
| |others. | |feelings and ideas. | |
| |Empathetic to other people's | | | |
| |feelings and ideas. | | | |
Source:
Group Evaluation Rubric
|Criterion |4 |3 |2 |1 |
|Effort |Produced additional |Fully prepared; completed all |Minimal preparation; |Little or no evidence of |
| |resources for the group; |agreed tasks; competent, but not|superficial knowledge of |preparation; no effort shown|
| |extraordinary effort |extraordinary |resources; minimal effort | |
| |demonstrated | | | |
|Attitude |Exceptionally positive and |Positive; supportive; mostly |Neutral; neither encouraging|Disparaging; negative, |
| |constructive; encourages |constructive and upbeat |nor discouraging; |withdrawn or belligerent; |
| |other group members | |disinterested in the |absent |
| | | |performance of others | |
|Contribution |Outstanding contribution; |Good quality work; few revisions|Poor quality work; |Poor quality; little, if |
| |above-and-beyond; work is |or additions are necessary |substantive errors; much |any, contribution to group |
| |excellent in form and | |revision and editing is |goals |
| |substance | |required | |
|Group Member |Group |Effort |Attitude |Contribution |Total |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Source:
Table 1 : Options for lecturer/tutor assessment of group product
|Assessment option |Some possible advantages |Some possible disadvantages |
|Shared Group Mark |encourages group work - groups sink or swim |Individual contributions are not necessarily |
|The group submits one product and all group|together |reflected in the marks |
|members receive the same mark from the |decreases likelihood of plagiarism more likely |stronger students may be unfairly disadvantaged|
|lecturer/tutor, regardless of individual |with individual products from group work |by weaker ones and vice versa |
|contribution. |relatively straightforward method | |
|Group Average Mark |may provide motivation for students to focus on |may be perceived as unfair by students |
|Individual submissions (allocated task or |both individual and group work and thereby |stronger students may be unfairly disadvantaged|
|individual reports as described below) are |develop in both areas |by weaker ones and vice versa |
|marked individually. The group members each| | |
|then receive an average of these marks. | | |
|Individual Mark |a relatively objective way of ensuring individual|difficult to find tasks that are exactly equal |
|- Allocated task |participation |in size/complexity |
|Each student completes an allocated task |may provide additional motivation to students |does not encourage the group |
|that contributes to the final group product|potential to reward outstanding performance |process/collaboration |
|and gets the marks for that task | |dependencies between tasks may slow progress of|
| | |some students |
|Individual Mark - Individual report |Ensures individual effort |precise manner in which individual reports |
|Each student writes and submits an |Perceived as fair bystudents |should differ often very unclear to students |
|individual report based on the group's work| |likelihood of unintentional plagiarism |
|on the task/project | |increased |
|Individual Mark - Examination |may motivatestudents more to learn from the group|may diminish importance of group work |
|Exam questions specifically target the |project including learning from the other members|additional work for staff in designing exam |
|group projects, and can only be answered by|of the group |questions |
|students who have been thoroughly involved | |may not be effective, students may be able to |
|in the project | |answer the questions by reading the group |
| | |reports |
|Combination of Group Average and Individual|perceived by many students as fairer than shared |additional work for staff in setting up |
|Mark |group mark |procedure for and in negotiating adjustments |
|The group mark is awarded to each member | | |
|with a mechanism for adjusting for | | |
|individual contributions | | |
NB. Table based on Winchester-Seeto (2002).
Table 2: Options for student assessment of group product
|Assessment option |Some possible advantages |Some possible disadvantages |
|Student distribution of pool of marks |easy to implement |open to subjective evaluation by friends |
|Lecturer/tutor awards a set number of marks |may motivate students to contribute more |may lead to conflict |
|and let the group decide how to distribute |negotiation skills become part of the learning |may foster competition and therefore be |
|them. |process |counterproductive to team work |
|For example, the product is marked 80 (out |potential to reward outstanding performance |students may not have the skills necessary for |
|of a possible 100) by the lecturer. There |may be perceived as fairer than shared or average |the required negotiation |
|are four members of the group. Four by 80 = |group mark alone | |
|240 so there are 240 marks to distribute to | | |
|the four members. No one student can be | | |
|given less than zero or more than 100. If | | |
|members decide that they all contributed | | |
|equally to the product then each member | | |
|would receive a mark of 80. If they decided | | |
|that some of the group had made a bigger | | |
|contribution, then those members might get | | |
|85 or 90 marks and those who contributed | | |
|less would get a lesser mark. | | |
|Students allocate individual weightings |As above |As above |
|Lecture/tutor gives shared group mark, which| | |
|is adjusted according to a peer assessment | | |
|factor. The individual student's mark comes | | |
|from the group mark multiplied by the peer | | |
|assessment factor (eg. X 0.5 for 'half' | | |
|contribution or X 1 for 'full' contribution)| | |
|Peer Evaluation - random marker, using |helps clarify criteria to be used for assessment |time may have to be invested in teaching |
|criteria, moderated |encourages a sense of involvement and |students to evaluate each other |
|Completed assessment items are randomly |responsibility |staff moderation is time consuming |
|distributed to students who are required |assists students to develop skills in independent | |
|tocomplete a marking sheet identifying |judgement | |
|whether their peer has met the assessment |increases feedback to students | |
|criteria and awarding a mark. These marks |random allocation addresses potential friendship | |
|are moderated by the staff member and |and other influences on assessment | |
|together with the peer marking sheets are |may provide experience parallel to career | |
|returned with the assessment item. |situations where peer judgement occurs | |
NB. Table based on Winchester-Seeto (2002).
Table 3: Options for lecturer/tutor assessment of group process
|Assessment option |Some possible advantages |Some possible disadvantages |
|Individual mark - based on |logs can potentially provide plenty of information|Reviewing logs can be time consuming for |
|records/observation of process |to form basis of assessment |lecturer/tutor |
|Each individual group member's contribution |keeping minute sheets helps members to focus on |Students may need a lot of training and |
|(as defined by predetermined criteria) is |the process - a learning experience in itself |experience in keeping records |
|assessed using evidence from: |May be perceived as a fair way to deal with |Emphasis on second hand evidence - reliability |
|team log books |'shirkers' and outstanding contributions |an issue |
|minutes sheets and/or | |direct observation by a lecturer/tutor likely to|
|direct observation of process | |change the nature of interaction in the group |
|And they are awarded a mark | | |
|Group average mark |makes students focus on their operation as a team |reviewing logs can be time consuming |
|-based on records/observation of process |logs can provide plenty of information to form |students may need a lot of training and |
|Each individual group member's contribution |basis of assessment |experience |
|(as defined by predetermined criteria) is |keeping minute sheets helps members to focus on |emphasis on second hand evidence - reliability |
|assessed using evidence from: |the process - a learning experience in itself |an issue |
|team log books | |averaging the mark may be seen as unfair to |
|minutes sheets and/or | |those who have contributed more than others |
|direct observation of process. | | |
|The group members each then receive an | | |
|average of these marks. | | |
|Individual mark |helps students to focus on the process |information from students may be subjective |
|- for paper analysing process |minimises opportunities for plagiarism |and/or inaccurate |
|Marks attributed for an individual paper | |may increase assessment burden for |
|from each student analysing the group | |lecturer/tutor |
|process, including their own contribution | | |
|that of student colleagues | | |
NB. Table based on Winchester-Seeto (2002).
Table 4: Options for student assessment of group process
|Assessment option |Some possible advantages |Some possible disadvantages |
|Peer Evaluation - average mark, using |helps clarify criteria to be used for assessment |may increase lecturer/tutor workload in terms of|
|predetermined criteria |Encourages sense of involvement and responsibility|- briefing students about the process - ensuring|
|Students in a group individually evaluate |on part of students |the criteria are explicit and clear - teaching |
|each other's contribution using a |May assist students to develop skills in |students how to evaluate each other |
|predetermined list of criteria. The final |independent judgement |students may allow friendships to influence |
|mark is an average of all marks awarded by |Provides detailedfeedback to students |their assessment - reliability an issue |
|members of the group. |Provides experience parallel to career situations |students may not perceive this system as fair |
| |where group judgement is made |because of the possibility of being |
| |May reduce lecturer's marking load |discriminated against |
|Self evaluation- moderated mark, using |helps clarify criteriato be used for assessment |may increase lecturer/tutor workload in terms of|
|predetermined criteria |Encourages sense of involvement and responsibility|- briefing students about the process - ensuring|
|Students individually evaluate their own |on part of students |the criteria for success are explicit and clear |
|contribution using predetermined criteria |May assist students to develop skills in |- teaching students how to evaluate themselves |
|and award themselves a mark. |independent judgement |self evaluations may be perceived as unreliable |
|Lecturers/tutors moderate the marks awarded.| | |
NB. Table based on Winchester-Seeto (2002).
Source:
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- assessment rubric for a collaborative group report
- curriculum vitae columbus state university
- csu channel islands
- microsoft word california state university east bay
- registration form sample
- president s cabinet columbus state university
- bylaws of the professional advisory development board
- california state university fresno
- california state university channel islands
- collaborative plan of support between michalis stylianou
Related searches
- fsa rubric for writing
- grading rubric for essay
- rubric for high school essays
- rubric for a personal narrative
- essay rubric for high school
- college rubric for essay writing
- writing rubric for elementary
- rubric for argumentative essay
- grading rubric for argumentative essay
- rubric for essay question
- grading rubric for persuasive essay
- rubric for skills assessment