Assessing Group Work and Participation
This section provides information on how to assess group work and participation in an online environment.
The following video takes viewers through a flow-chart which examines the considerations that instructors should take as they plan to assess group work. The YouTube description for this video contains references and external resources if you wish to dive deeper into this topic. As well, the flowchart itself can be found here.
Examples
- the cohesiveness and cooperation of a team of students;
- students' participation in asynchronous discussion forums;
- students' participation synchronous sessions.
Group Work
There are three main questions you should ask yourself when assessing group work online:
- Is this a formative assessment or summative assessment?
- How are students assigned a grade?
- Are students grading each other?
1. Is this a formative assessment or a summative assessment?
Formative assessment (assessment for learning) provides opportunities for students to get feedback on their contribution to group activities, identify what they are doing well and what needs to be a focus for improvement. Formative feedback does not involve a grade, focusing instead on feedback from:
(a) the instructor to a student or group of students;
(b) group members to each other (peer assessment); or
(c) self-assessment/self-reflection.
There are many ways to support students by providing formative assessment. Learn more strategies at Edutopia's 53 Ways To Check for Understanding. One particularly helpful aspect of formative assessment is "next steps" which identifies what, specifically, should be the focus for improvement. These next steps provide clear guidelines which can be used as evidence of improvement. While much of this formative feedback can be given orally, it is recommended that any formal discussions be documented so that improvement can be document.
Summative assessment (assessment of learning) of group work usually occurs as a project is finishing or has been completed. For group work, this might include a formal reflection about how a student contributed to a group, peer-evaluations of their group members, or a group reflection of their experience of working together.
If you intend to summatively assess students' group work (or have students assess each other), it is strongly recommended that you build in multiple opportunities for formative assessment of these skills. For example, all students must have a "group meeting" to provide each other with feedback about their group contributions before the third week of class.
2. How are students assigned a grade?
There are many ways of grading group work on a project. Of course, the product will be graded but how is a grade meaningfully interpreted for each individual? For some ideas of how you might assess this group work, view CTL's Assessing Group Work document.
3. Are students grading each other?
Some instructors like to include students in the summative assessment of their peers' contributions to group work. This makes sense because they would certainly know how they all worked together. However, this could also lead to inflated grades (if students all rate each other highly despite contribution) or unfairly rating a peer (if students rate based on emotions towards another instead of their contribution).
If you choose to include peer-grades in your assessment of group work, you will need to decide how much of their grade for this assignment is connected to peer-grading and how they will come to this grade. Students must be provided with clear criteria and guiding questions in order to assess their peers fairly and appropriately. Consider creating a scoring guide or rubric for students.
Finally, according to UAPPOL, the instructor of a course is ultimately responsible for ensuring the accuracy of a students' final grade at the University of Alberta. This means that, should a student appeal their course grade, the instructor will be responsible to define how this grade was assigned.
Participation
There are three main questions you should ask yourself when assessing group work online:
- Why is it important for me to assess student participation and how would I do this effectively?
- Am I assessing students’ synchronous or asynchronous participation in the course?
- If I am going to grade participation, how will I provide formative assessment opportunities?
1. Why is it important for me to assess student participation and how would I do this effectively?
The University of Alberta Assessment and Grading Policy states that all assessments need to be connecting to the learning outcomes of a course. Before including a participation grade, identify which learning outcome students will be assessed on through participation. After identifying your learning outcome, determine whether it is a participation or professionalism grade that you are looking to assess. Finally, write a short rubric that indicates how students will be assessed on their participation or professionalism and give students clear direction on how you expect them to participate in your course.
Here is an example of a holistic rubric that could be used to assess professionalism:
| Letter Grade | Descriptors | |
| A | Always prepared and attends class. Participates constructively in class. Is a team player. Demonstrates initiative and improvement. Seeks to understand and acknowledge others’ thoughts. Often reaches full potential if sufficiently challenged. Class assignments have something extra about them. Exceptional content knowledge. | |
| B | Usually prepared and attends class. Participates constructively in class, works well with others, and is a team player. Excellent content knowledge. Completes all class assignments. Demonstrates initiative and improvement. Seeks to understand and acknowledge others’ thoughts. Stretches to reach full potential. | |
| C | Sometimes prepared and attends class. Average content knowledge. Occasionally or only challenges thought when encouraged by others. Assignments reflect average work. Sometimes an active participant in class. Works well with others. | |
| D | Rarely prepared or attends class. Rarely participates constructively in class. Assignments are late, incomplete, or not turned in at all. Low level of content knowledge. Does not strive to reach potential. |
2. Am I assessing students’ synchronous or asynchronous participation in the course?
In many courses, instructors will have students interacting in both synchronous and asynchronous modes.
As an asynchronous example, instructors might choose to have students contribute to online discussion boards (or forums) on eClass and grade their contributions. Instructors can choose to grade forums by rating individual posts or grading students' on their entire forum contribution.
In a class with synchronous participation, instructors might choose to have a small rubric where they can grade students' participation and contribution each class. Instructors can see students' engagement on zoom through the chat room, breakout room work, and poll participation.
3. If I am going to grade participation, how will I provide formative assessment opportunities?
Participation grades which are only given to students at the end of the course can be stressful for students as they have no idea how the instructor perceives their participation. They are also stressful for instructors as participation grades are easily appealed. To mitigate this stress, if you choose to grade participation, consider giving formative feedback to students about their participation/professionalism during the course.
For example, you might ask students to submit their perceived grade on participation at several points in the semester, including a short justification of their grade. This provides a starting place for a conversation where you can share their participation grade in the course at that moment and evidence for your current decision.
As another example, you might provide students their participation grades at several points in the semester with a few ideas for improvement. We recommend giving these assessments approximately every 3 weeks in the semester.
Example
Hooi Ling is working with 3 other students to create a website using Google Sites. The group has chosen a topic from a list given by their instructor. They have 3 weeks to plan and create the website. Their instructor has broken down the task into timed sections:
Section 1 (end of the first week)
Complete formative self-review and group review using the rubric on eClass.
This rubric focuses students’ responses on their individual and group engagement with the task, progress, personal goals, etc. Next steps should be provided to indicate what should be completed by the end of Week 2. The instructor also provides next steps.
Section 2 (Wed - Fri of 2nd week)
Complete the peer-group formative review using the rubric on eClass.
A separate group will review the progress made so far and provide feedback. This has been set up using the “Group Peer Assessment - Beta” activity in eClass. The rubric focuses the reviewers from the other group on content, referencing, grammar, structure, engagement, etc. Next steps should be provided to the assessed group to indicate what they should improve, change or add before their presentation in week 3.
Section 3 (Week 3)
Presentations to class (or perhaps only to instructor, TA or a few other groups).
This summative (graded) assessment is graded by the instructor using a marking rubric which has been shared with the students on eClass in advance (i.e., before the task has begun in Week 1). The marking rubric focuses on the content of the created website and is based on learning outcomes. The instructor could have also included a graded section worth 10% based on each individuals’ contribution to the task within the group, based on the formative feedback from the rubrics in Section 1 and Section 2. However, the instructor has decided that the formative tasks in Section 1 and Section 2 will suffice. The marking rubric does, however, include a graded section named “Evidence of improvement from next steps” in which the instructor will be looking for evidence the group has taken on comments from their peers (and from the instructor on board).