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| |constructive; encourages |constructive and upbeat |nor discouraging; |withdrawn or belligerent; |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.

Google Online Preview   Download