RECOGNISING INDIVIDUAL STUDENT LEARNING IN GROUP WORK DR KAREN KING SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES CED CONFERENCE 23 RD JUNE 2016

CONTENT Introduction Case study 1: Group working with assessment weighted towards individual student work. Case study 2: Group working where students choose a ‘group’ or ‘individually weighted’ mark for the main assessed element. Conclusions

1. INTRODUCTION Group work is recognised as an important element in many degree programmes: Included in benchmark statements; Important skill employers are looking for; Students ‘benefit’ from group work ………

1. INTRODUCTION But difficulties arise, including: Students ‘falling out’/not wanting to work together. Students feeling the other group members are ‘holding them back’ Students feeling other students are benefitting from their work. Students feeling they have to do other students work to gain a high mark. Students not engaging as they are think other students will do the work. ASSESSMENT?????

1. INTRODUCTION For group work: WHAT DO WE ASSESS? HOW DO WE ASSESS? CAN WE ACCOMMODATE ANY THESE DIFFICULTIES WITHIN THE ASSESSMENT PROFILE?

1. INTRODUCTION WHAT DO WE ASSESS? How individual students ‘perform’ in a group setting? When allocated roles – how well students perform these roles? HOW DO WE ASSESS? Need to observe. i.e. The Apprentice or assessment centres.

1. INTRODUCTION The key reason I do group work is STUDENT LEARNING. First year learning styles seminar. Styles: i.e. independent, aural, logical, visual, social etc. The strongest learning style was consistently SOCIAL. Need to utilise this in teaching sessions to enhance student learning. Now use a range of group work in Level 1, 2 and 3 modules, with assessment based primary around student learning, with opportunities for students to undertake different roles within groups.

CASE STUDY 1 Group working with assessment weighted towards individual student work. [A Level 2 module] A Problem Based Learning module. Students work in the same groups of a maximum of 5 students per group. A different Chair and Secretary act for each topic. Students are given a ‘problem’ related to a specific topic and allowed 1 hour to work as a group on defining the problem, what they already know and what they need to find out. They submit a completed Template [1] giving this information to QOL before leaving the class. Outside the class, students work individually on the information they need to find out and submit a second template [Template 2 ] with this information before the next session. The second session allows the students 2 hours to discuss and agree the outcomes for the problem using the information they have found out individually and they submit a group Template [3] to QOL at the end of their discussion.

CASE STUDY 1 Group working with assessment weighted towards individual student work. [A Level 2 module] The assessment profile: Template 1 – group – formative feedback within 24 hours. Template 2 – individual – assessed and mean mark of these elements = 60% of module mark. Template 3 – group - assessed and mean mark = 20% of module mark. [Remaining 20% from practical and other reports]

CASE STUDY 1 Group working with assessment weighted towards individual student work. [A Level 2 module] The assessment profile: Allows for group discussion and learning. Ensures individual student activity enabling all students to contribute to final discussion and assessment. Individual assessment weighting enables students to identify they will benefit from their own work. Individual assessment weighting enables students to identify they will not significantly benefit from other student’s work.

CASE STUDY 2 Group working where students choose a ‘group’ or ‘individually weighted’ mark for the main assessed element. [A Level 3 module] Students work in groups to devise a business idea, complete a business plan and present in a ‘Dragon’s Den’. Students work in groups of 5 throughout the module. Each student is responsible for leading in a particular role – chairperson, product design, operations, finances or marketing. Groups agree a working contract for the group and how they will work as a group i.e. as a collection of individuals responsible for developing a particular aspect of the business or collectively with the named person ‘leading’ on their assigned aspect. They collectively devise and agree a business idea and develop a business plan which they present in a ‘Dragon’s Den ‘ scenario.

CASE STUDY 2 Group working where students choose a ‘group’ or ‘individually weighted’ mark for the main assessed element. [A Level 3 module] Assessment profile: Peer review – individual = 10% Idea template - group = 10% Business Plan – group or ‘individually weighted’ = 60% Dragon’s Den presentation – group = 20% Overall – ‘group’ 30% or 90%: ‘individual’ 10% or 70%

CASE STUDY 2 Group working where students choose a ‘group’ or ‘individually weighted’ mark for the main assessed element. [A Level 3 module] Business plan – group vs ‘individually weighted’ mark Business plan - 5 sections; executive summary and business details [chairperson], vision and business idea [product design], marketing, operations and legal issues and finance. Each section is marked out of 20. For a GROUP mark – section marks are added to give mark out of 100. i.e. the same % mark awarded to all members of the group. For an INDIVIDUALLY WEIGHTED mark - student’s own section mark = 60% of their mark and each other group members mark contributes 10%.

CASE STUDY 2 Group working where students choose a ‘group’ or ‘individually weighted’ mark for the main assessed element. [A Level 3 module] Example of group and individually weighted mark differences. SectionExec summary Vision etc.MarketingOperationsFinance Mark / Individually weighted mark Group mark equivalent 66

CASE STUDY 2 Group working where students choose a ‘group’ or ‘individually weighted’ mark for the main assessed element. [A Level 3 module] ‘Individually weighted’ option: Recognises group work, however allows students to choose an ‘individually weighted’ mark for group work. Can differentiate between students within a group even with some influence from other students marks. Recognises individual learning within a group activity.

CONCLUSIONS Group work should be considered as an important learning environment for students. The assessment profile should allow for difficulties which may arise in group work. A significant actual or potential [students selected] bias towards individual work helps students recognise ‘fairness’ in group assessment. Individual students need to be able to identify a ‘low risk’ scenario with respect to their own assessment. Individual students need to be able to identify they may not benefit significantly from other student’s work.