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