Assessing Student-Student Collaboration (Promises and Perils of Assigning and Grading Group Work, aka, Cooperative

Learning or Cheating?)

Karl A. SmithUniversity of Minnesota

ksmith@umn.edu

Center for InstructionalDevelopment and ResearchUniversity of Washington

Spring 2005

Session Overview

• Introductions – session, facilitator, participants– Developed with Stan Soffin, Michigan State University

• Survey of group grading practices• Advantages & Disadvantages of group

assignments/grades• Problems reported to MSU Ombudsman Office

concerning group grades• MSU Student Group Work Guidelines• Group work grading advice

Group Assignment/Grading Practices

• Assign Group Projects/Homeworks/?• Percentage of Grade based on group work– <10%– 10-20%– 20-30%– >30%

• Assess Individual Contributions to Group Work? How?

• Other?

Instructional Techniques1

EngineeringFaculty

All Faculty

Extensivelecturing

78% 54%

Classdiscussion

45 70

Graduate TAs 18 6

Cooperativelearning

14 27

Percent of those using the technique in all ormost classes

Astin, Alexander W. 1993. Engineering outcomes. ASEE PRISM, 3(1), 27-30.

Advantages of Assigning Group Work

• Students know one another• Provides a sense of realism for the fields they’ll go to• Illustrative of class material, e.g., organizational communication• Distributes the workload for complex projects• Exposes students to opinions other than their own• Students learn team-based skills• Increases interaction in the classroom• Fewer projects to grade• Process advantage for the student• Multiculturalism • Much more dynamic classroom, students are engaged• Breaks up the monotony• Learning the art of compromise• Makes it easier to deal with large classes and large labs• Ends up being better for presenting work to the rest of the class• You can do more complex, rigorous learning with more advanced projects• Get students out of the classroom – community, • Sometimes students do a better job of explaining concepts than we do• Students can learn from other students work habits

Cooperative Learning Research Support Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. 1998. Cooperative learning returns to

college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30 (4), 26-35.

• Over 300 Experimental Studies• First study conducted in 1924• High Generalizability• Multiple Outcomes

Outcomes

1. Achievement and retention2. Critical thinking and higher-level

reasoning3. Differentiated views of others4. Accurate understanding of others'

perspectives5. Liking for classmates and teacher6. Liking for subject areas7. Teamwork skills

Small-Group Learning: Meta- analysis

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. 1999. Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21-52.

Small-group (predominantly cooperative) learning in postsecondary science, mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET). 383 reports from 1980 or later, 39 of which met the rigorous inclusion criteria for meta-analysis.

The main effect of small-group learning on achievement, persistence, and attitudes among undergraduates in SMET was significant and positive. Mean effect sizes for achievement, persistence, and attitudes were 0.51, 0.46, and 0.55, respectively.

Cooperative Learning is instruction that involves people working in teams to accomplish a common goal, under conditions that involve both positive interdependence (all members must cooperate to complete the task) and individual and group accountability (each member is accountable for the complete final outcome).

Key Concepts

•Positive Interdependence•Individual and Group Accountability•Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction•Teamwork Skills•Group Processing

Challenges/Disadvantages of Assigning Group Work

• Individuals need time to reflect before moving into group discussion otherwise they may adopt others’ perspectives

• How to form groups so they can work effectively together• Difficulty assessing individual student’s work/effort• Some students refuse to work with others• Some students feel intimidated if they don’t know• Places more importance on absences• Difficult to find/design good exercises• Difficult to schedule out of class meetings• Overall raising of grades• Students grading students

Problems Reported to MSU Ombudsman Office concerning group grades

1. Students’ participating in grading

2. Students felt “ganged up on” resulting in reduced (& unfair) reduction in contribution from team members

3. Student let other students down

4. Surprise allegation of plagiarism

MSU Student Group Work Guidelines

• Structure: Establishing Group Projects for Greatest Effectiveness1. Course planning factors2. Detailed Expectations3. Course Orientation Discussion4. Contracts with Students5. Training in Group Work• Process: Effective Use of Groups in the Classroom1. Student Work Expectations2. Monitoring Process3. Factoring Affecting the Monitoring Process4. Checking the Value of Group Work• Evaluation: Student Evaluation in Group Assignments1. Individual Contributions to Group Assignments2. Faculty Evaluation3. Peer Evaluation4. Caution for New Projects5. Student Feedback

Research on academic integrity• On most campuses, over 75% of students

admit some cheating• Academic honor codes effectively reduce

cheatingChronic cheating is also prevalentFaculty are reluctant to report cheating

• Cheating is higher among fraternity and sorority members

• Longitudinal comparisons show significant increases in explicit test/examination cheating and unpermitted collaboration

http://www.northwestern.edu/uacc/cai/research/highlights.html (accessed 9/1/03)

SERIOUS CHEATING ON CAMPUSES

WhenPvt. Campus with Honor Code

Lg. Pub. Univ.with Modified Honor Code

Campuses with No Honor Code

On tests 23% 33% 45%

On written work

45% 50% 56%

New research on academic integrity: The success of "modified" honor codes. COLLEGE ADMINISTRATION PUBLICATIONS, INC. http://www.collegepubs.com/ref/SFX000515.shtml (accessed 9/1/03)

What can be done to reduce/eliminate

cheating?

On examsOn written assignments

What role does/can cooperative learning play?

What can be done to reduce/eliminate cheating

(inappropriate cooperation)?

Refer explicitly to the policy on Scholastic Conduct

Be very explicit about telling students when and how they are expected to cooperate and when they are to work individually

1.00 PROTECTION OF SCHOLARSHIP AND GRADESThe principles of truth and honesty are fundamental to the

educational process and the academic integrity of the University; therefore, no student shall:

1.01 claim or submit the academic work of another as one's own. 1.02 procure, provide, accept or use any materials containing

questions or answers to any examination or assignment without proper authorization.

1.03 complete or attempt to complete any assignment or examination for another individual without proper authorization.

1.04 allow any examination or assignment to be completed for oneself, in part or in total, by another without proper authorization.

1.05 alter, tamper with, appropriate, destroy or otherwise interfere with the research, resources, or other academic work of another person.

1.06 fabricate or falsify data or results. to work individually

MSU Spartan Life: 2003-2004 Student Handbook and Resource Guide, p. 77

On my honor as a student I have neither given nor received aid on thisassignment/exam (University of Virginia)

The Honor System is an integral part of the University of Virginia. The essence of the system is that a student's word as a member of the University can be accepted without question and that any violation of a student's word is an offense against the entire student body. Course instructors will indicate which assignments are to be done individually and which permit collaboration. The following pledge should be written out at the end of all quizzes and examinations and on individual assignments and papers: "On my honor as a student I have neither given nor received aid on this assignment/exam." The pledge must be signed by the student. The University Honor Committee enforces the honor system. Students who violate the honor code are expelled from the University.

University of Virginia Honor Pledge

I recognize academic integrity as essential to the University of Minnesota’s and its students’ equitable and uncompromised pursuit of their joint endeavors. As a student I promise to practice it to the best of my ability and to do nothing that would give me unfair advantage at the expense of my fellow students. If I cheat in spite of making this declaration, I expect to be penalized according to the offense, up to and including notation of cheating recorded on my transcript and permanent expulsion from the University of Minnesota.http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/reports/saicrept.html (accessed 4/25/00)

University of Minnesota Honor Code

Professor's Role inFormal Cooperative Learning

1. Specifying Objectives

2. Making Decisions

3. Explaining Task, Positive Interdependence, and Individual Accountability

4. Monitoring and Intervening to Teach Skills

5. Evaluating Students' Achievement and Group Effectiveness

Comparison of Learning Groups

Less Structured (Traditional) More Structured (Cooperative)

Low interdependence. Members takeresponsibility only for self. Focus is onindividual performance only.

High positive interdependence. Membersare responsible for own and each other’slearning. Focus is on joint performance.

Individual accountability only Both group and individual accountability. Members hold self and others accountablefor high quality work.

Assignments are discussed with littlecommitment to each other’s learning.

Members promote each other’s success. They do real work together and help andsupport each other’s efforts to learn.

Teamwork skills are ignored. Leader isappointed to direct members’ participation.

Teamwork skills are emphasized. Membersare taught and expected to use social skills. All members share leadershipresponsibilities.

No group processing of the quality of itswork. Individual accomplishments arerewarded.

Group processes quality of work and howeffectively members are working together. Continuous improvement is emphasized.rewarded. Continuous improvement is emphasized.

MSU Student Group Work Guidelines

• Structure: Establishing Group Projects for Greatest Effectiveness1. Course planning factors2. Detailed Expectations3. Course Orientation Discussion4. Contracts with Students5. Training in Group Work• Process: Effective Use of Groups in the Classroom1. Student Work Expectations2. Monitoring Process3. Factoring Affecting the Monitoring Process4. Checking the Value of Group Work• Evaluation: Student Evaluation in Group Assignments1. Individual Contributions to Group Assignments2. Faculty Evaluation3. Peer Evaluation4. Caution for New Projects5. Student Feedback

Cooperative Learning: Advice for Starting Out

DON'T give group grades until you and the students are ready

Rule: No student's grade should be lower because of cooperative learning. Evaluation for learning should be individual until you and the students are ready for group grades. Explore alternatives to giving group grades for

group work.

Further Reading

MSU Student Group Work Guidelines

Cooperative learning: Making Agroupwork@ work -Karl Smith

Grading cooperative projects - Karl Smith