Abstract: Group project is one of the most common assessment methods used in New Zealand Private Tertiary Establishments (PTEs). Group work is considered as a purposeful and valued learning approach as it enriches the experiential learning of group dynamic. However, for the possibility of student satisfaction and positive learning outcomes with group activities to be significantly improved certain points need to be achieved; effective group project processes are utilised, clear assessment instructions are developed and communicated, and valid and fair grading is employed for the project processes. On the other hand, if students cannot see the point of group projects or they are unsure of what is expected of them or think the assessment methods are invalid or the grading system is unfair; the educational benefits are reduced and tensions can emerge. In fact, the way in which students engage in a group project is mainly determined by the way in which they are to be assessed. For example, since not all group members have the same contribution, the students feel that giving the same mark to all members is unfair. As a result, some tertiary educators use a strategy called ‘peer and self-assessment’ as a method of determining how group marks are to be distributed among individuals . This paper provides an approach to calculate the peer review points and adjust the individual grades. The proposed approach is called the weighting factor (Wf) that represents how much the contribution percentage is for each member of the group
Keywords: Group project, Self and peer review, student assessment, Teamwork.
1. G. Kennedy, G., “Peer-assessment in Group Projects: Is It Worth It?”, Australian Computer Society, Inc. , Australia. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, 2006, Vol. 42. Alison Young and Denise Tolhurst, Eds. Reproduction for academic.
2. W. Davies, “Groupwork as a form of assessment: common problems and recommended solutions”. High Educ, 2009. 58:5 pp. 63–584, DOI 10.1007/s10734-009-9216-y Published online: 20 March 2009, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009.
3. R. Watkins. “Group work and assessment, The Handbook for economic lectures”, 2004, Kingston University.
4. D. Hall, & S. Buzwell. “The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non contribution”. Active Learning in Higher Education Vol 14, no 1, 2012, pp. 37–49, sagepub.co.uk/ journalsPermissions.nav, DOI: 10.1177/1469787412467123, alh.sagepub.com
5. J. Pearce, R. Mulder & C. Baik, “Involving students in peer review Case studies and practical strategies for university teaching”, Centre for the Study of Higher Education The University of Melbourne, 2009, http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au
6. Centre for Academic Development. “Group work and group assessment”. 2013, Victoria university of wellington.
7. D. Spiller, “Assessment Matters: Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment”, Teaching Development, Wāhanga Whakapakari Ako, The university of Waikato, February 2009.
8. J. Alden, “Assessment of individual student performance in online team project”, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 15, 2011, Issue 3.
9. P. Willmot & K. Pond, “Multi-disciplinary Peer-mark Moderation of Group Work”, International Journal of Higher Education, 2012, Vol. 1, No. 1; May 2012 , www.sciedu.ca/ijhe doi:10.5430/ijhe.v1n1p2.
10. N. Elliott & A. Higgins, “Self and peer assessment – does it make a difference to student group work?”, Nurse Education in Practice Vol. 5, 2005, pp. 40–48, www.elsevierhealth.com/journals/nepr.
11. D. Hall and S. Buzwell, “The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution”, Vol. 14, 2012, issue. 1, pp. 37-49, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/146978741246712312. J. Fermelis, R. Tucker & S. Palmer, “Online self and peer assessment in large, multi-campus, multi-cohort contexts”. In Proceedings of ASCILITE - Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference 2007, pp. 271-281. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.
13. C. Cestone, R. Lvine,. & D. Lane, ” Peer Assessment and Evaluation in Team-Based Learning”, NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING, no. 116, Winter 2008, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/tl.334.
14. R. Raban, & A. Litchfield, ” Supporting peer assessment of individual contributions in group work”, 2007. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2007, volume 23, no 1, pp 34-47.
15. B. Friedman, P. Cox and L. Maher, “An expectancy theory motivation approach to peer assessment”. Thesis, School of Business State University of New York at Oswego, 2008.
16. H. Andrade and Y. Du, “Student responses to criteriareferenced self-assessment”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 32, No. 2, April 2007, pp. 159–18.
17. K. Pond, D. Coates and O. A. Palermo, “Student experiences of peer review marking of team projects”. International journal of management education, Vol. 6, 2007, no.2, pp. 30-43.
18. O. Onyia “Integrating teacher- and peer-assessments of group coursework assignments in business education: Some innovative methods”, the Research in Higher Education Journal, Vol. 21, August, 2013.