TEMPLATE DESIGN © Group Work Evaluation Issue Fairness in Group Work Evaluation Evaluation can be difficult enough when assessing an individual. How do we effectively monitor the level of contribution made by each member of a group and evaluate how well they handled situations? How can multiple methodologies contribute to fair assessment within a reasonable time allotment; in particular, technology, peer and self-evaluation? Findings Learning Outcomes 1.Demonstrate responsibility in active participation and contribution in group project 2.Demonstrate leadership and interpersonal skills while collaborating with group members 3.Demonstrate ability to suggest and implement ideas to group project using communications tools Evaluation Plan Each group member will be assessed using evidence of contribution to a group project through various means: – Measurable – Self-Peer Evaluation – Individual Evaluation – forum monitoring* – Group Evaluation – Not Measurable (observable) – Progress reports – Member-Teacher discussions Formative Evaluation – forum posting will be monitored regularly to assess individual and group activity. Summative Evaluation – will be compiled from all measurable sources for final grading. Assessment Instruments Self-Peer Evaluation (by student) Implications Time constraints in monitoring can affect the amount of evaluation means. The validity of self-peer ratings has been the main focus in the past, although, the fairness in the individuals' ability to properly rate others was a concern, argues Burke...(as cited in Bo et al., 2008, P.330). The reliability of self-peer ratings has been minimal in research (Bo et al, 2008, p.330). Evaluation has to have a purpose (Fenwick and Parsons, 2000, p.13) before assessing performance and we need to determine the criteria to ensure it is measurable and authentic which must be very clear and concise (p.13). According to Trentin (2009, p.53), through the use of technology, "evaluating each student’s level of participation and contribution on the basis of both objective data (number of messages and amount of material produced) and subjective data (teacher’s evaluation and peer evaluation) has proved effective, particularly regarding the collaborative dialogue process". Kagan writes...(as cited in Bo et al., 2008, P.329) that it's unfair that each member of a group receives the same mark regardless of the individual's level of participation and that it doesn't motivate many of the students. Daniela Slater Brock University - ADED 49P4 - Assignment 3 for Nancy McConnell, Ph.D. 1=Limited 2=Adequate 3=Competent 4=Superior SelfMember 2 Member 3 Shared ideas freely Offered support Energetic Shared workload Trentin (2008, p.44) supports the use of technology to help monitor the student’s level of participation towards the group’s collective product. 1=Limited 2=Adequate 3=Competent 4=Superior Insight Research Clarity Organization Self-Peer average score Forum monitoring* Final Group Evaluation (by Instructor per student) References See slide 2 of this poster board According to Bo et al (2008, p.329), "Without additional information indicative of the group process, it is difficult for teachers to decompose that group effort into individual efforts". *Forum monitoring is described as the Instructor’s assessment of qualitative and quantitative contributions made by the individual through an online forum within a group, on an ongoing basis. C ? ?

POSTER TEMPLATE BY: Bo, Z., Johnston, L., & Kilic, G. (2008). Assessing the reliability of self- and peer rating in student group work. Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education, 33(3), doi: / Fenwick, T., & Parsons, J. (2000). The Art of Evaluation: A Handbook for Educators and Trainers. Toronto: Thompson Educational. Kagan, S Group grades miss the mark. Educational Leadership 52: 68–71. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing. Trentin, G. G. (2009). Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a collaborative learning project. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), doi: /j x References