Introduction
The assessment stage is an integral component of the educational process and the factor that sums up all the learning activities. In the context of teaching, this practice involves following the clear principles of impartiality and justice to achieve objectivity in evaluating student academic results. However, in some cases and under certain circumstances, inadequate assessments of learning activities occur. Regarding student group work, this problem is also relevant and can have even more serious consequences because, with an incompetent approach to analysing academic success, not one but several people experience negative implications and have to perceive bias.
Addressing this issue in the modern educational environment is an important aspect of work in relation to improving the interaction of tutors and students. This work is aimed at determining the principles of assessment in the framework of group educational activities, the injustice of this procedure, its consequences, as well as behavioural and other methods of correcting this problem. Properly chosen communication strategies and the professionalism of those responsible are the aspects that can help avoid inequity in assessing group tasks and achieve a competent evaluation of student teamwork.
Principles of Group Assessment
Based on existing practices for assessing group activities in education, one can highlight several basic principles. Self-assessment is the simplest and most affordable technique that involves an independent analysis of educational performance. By using this approach, a student can determine whether his or her contribution to teamwork is sufficient and effective in order to rely on the positive assessment of a tutor and peers.
In addition, according to LaBeouf, Griffith and Roberts (2016), this principle makes it possible to consider specific educational outcomes informally and find out whether a person can conduct an independent evaluation of his or her productivity. This principle is standard practice in any educational institution and does not require any special training due to an opportunity to involve the standard strategies of self-analysis.
Another assessment method that is a common practice is peer evaluation. As LaBeouf et al. (2016) note, this technique of analysing individual contributions makes it possible to determine the degree of student significance comprehensively, and healthy criticism is an integral component of such an approach. Through interaction with peers, a student can count on a relatively objective assessment of his or her personal academic outcomes and role in the team.
Also, Pardo and Siemens (2014) remark that colleagues in group activities tend to have an unbiased opinion since all the members of the educational process work to achieve a common goal, and intentional prejudices are illogical, except in cases of personal hostility or, conversely, sympathy. This assessment method is a valuable tool for maintaining high performance and productive activity of all members of one team.
Finally, the principle of tutor assessment is the most important and, at the same time, responsible. According to Pardo and Siemens (2014), people who monitor student academic performance tend to have access to various reports based on correlation analyses and calculations. Consequently, from the standpoint of objectivity, such a method is the most justified and logical in the context of any activity, including group assignments. Nevertheless, as Pardo and Siemens (2014) remark, a tutor rarely has accurate data regarding the relationships of the members of one team, for instance, the frequency of conflicts.
As a result, grading is often based on an individual vision of the personal learning outcomes of each student. Despite available reports, errors are likely in this practice because the assessment is based on subjective analysis. Therefore, bias and inequity can be the results of this form of evaluation, both erroneously and purposefully. The perception of such inequity is acute, and its consequences are unpleasant for students themselves and their peers.
Inequity in Group Assessment
The manifestations of inequity in assessment and, in particular, in the evaluation of group tasks, affect all interested parties. Students experience anxious feelings when their roles in teams are criticised intentionally, and such a reaction is natural. At the same time, not only a deliberately biased attitude towards individuals can occur but also unintentional errors caused by certain psychological factors. For instance, Reeves, Mashiloane, Bowman, Richards and Koen (2015) give an example of a situation in which students who communicate with teachers directly even while participating in group projects are more likely to be recognised by mentors than those who behave more restrained.
Such a justification is one of the possible ones, and if applied to a specific educational environment, this situation may be described as a positively biased attitude of a tutor towards a student. Moreover, even if a team member has a clearly defined individual position in relation to a certain issue, this can lead to mentor’s disapproval due to the personal motives of the latter. Therefore, the manifestations of inequity may be different, and their prevention is an essential aspect of a productive educational environment.
Education can be a competitive sector, where participants do everything possible to gain credibility and trust and get the necessary gains, in particular, high scores. In this regard, the nature of relationships among all involved persons can be perceived as biased not only objectively but also subjectively based on individual arguments and views. According to Gorur (2014), group tasks for students require the necessary returns from all team members without exception.
If one of the participants of a joint project is not ready to show sufficient diligence or is unable to make an appropriate contribution due to limited knowledge and skills, the measurement of this result should be based on a general opinion but and not the statements of individuals (Gorur, 2014). A person whose position is considered weak in the group perceives injustice as an extremely offensive phenomenon that degrades one’s own dignity and distracts from the ultimate goals of learning. Thus, any evaluation based on an individual attitude but not objective motives is subjective and, therefore, inequitable.
Behavioural Strategies
Since group work requires the contribution of each participant to achieve a common goal, special behavioural strategies should be developed in order to act reasonably and prevent inequity in assessment. Joint activities stimulate the involvement and subsequent integration of individual knowledge and skills of team members. Fathi, Ghobakhloo and Syberfeldt (2019) argue that in this form of educational interaction, interdependent behaviour through personal responsibility is manifested clearly. In other words, a person realises the importance of one’s role and can count on the help of others, adapting to the mode of work in a team.
Also, Fathi et al. (2019) mention the concept of “the distributive justice of tasks” and state that inequity can manifest itself in the form of social loafing (p. 16). At the same time, the authors note that one of the key challenges for tutors is that it is difficult to determine specific evaluation criteria based on all available factors, for instance, personal contribution, the value of the ideas proposed or other parameters (Fathi et al., 2019). Therefore, situational behaviour should be an element of a competent approach to assessing academic performance in group assignments.
Leadership behaviour is also essential to take into account as a significant factor determining the dynamics of teamwork. As SantamarĂa (2014) argues, group leaders can distribute tasks among peers independently, which can be a productive measure in view of a common vision of the ultimate goals. With regard to online education, students have more opportunities to communicate with one another than with a tutor, and the prospect of constant interaction, taking into account the regulation of work as one of the leadership tasks, may contribute to more effective activities.
Nevertheless, it is crucial to establish the mode of interaction in which leaders are not sole participants in the planning process. In this case, the assessment of the work done is unlikely to be high because team members will not be able to confirm their personal contribution. Thus, leadership behaviour, as one of the forms of interpersonal interaction in groups, is a significant communication strategy.
When evaluating any results of group work in the educational process, a tutor takes the position of a key link in the assessment procedure. In this regard, according to Shah and Lewis (2019), the positioning theory may be considered a behavioural strategy that explains certain decisions made based on the analysis of specific results. This approach implies considering various outcomes of students’ activities while taking into account their role in teamwork and the contribution made to the achievement of a common goal. This behavioural practice can be effective and valuable for making unbiased decisions, but in some cases, inequity is manifested.
For instance, Shah and Lewis (2019) give an example of an intellectual hierarchy among students and note that when group members have an unequal knowledge background, this can affect the decision of a tutor in assessing the results of teamwork. Such an outcome is totally subjective and cannot be regarded as a positive implication of the positioning theory. However, possible manifestations of individual bias and incompetent evaluation take place sometimes, and their consequences can have a serious effect on the reputation of individual group members and their academic performance.
Consequences of Inequity in Assessing Group Activities
In the context of assessing group activities in the learning process, inequity can lead to not only academic but also other challenges that, in turn, affect the social aspects of life. Cruces, Domenech and Gasparini (2014) analyse the educational sphere of Latin America and note that, despite a high level of professional training, the rate of bias in evaluating the outcomes of learning activities is alarming in this region. The authors argue that educational inequity is correlated with income disparities and may be a factor hampering career development (Cruces et al., 2014).
In this case, students who are biased are forced to experience unfair peers’ and tutors’ attitude and adapt to the learning environment in which subjective opinions are fundamental. Gorur (2014) notes that inequity in assessing academic performance can develop into other forms of injustice, in particular, gender or socio-cultural ones, which is unacceptable in the context of a learning environment and free access to education. Unfair assessing leads to conflicts and a tense atmosphere in groups. As a result, the process of interpersonal interaction is characterised by the combination of personal value judgments and cannot be considered objective.
In addition to influencing social aspects, inequity in assessing academic performance affects the personalities of those parties involved. Reeves et al. (2015) consider the education system in South Africa and note that in local higher education institutions, there are challenges in establishing a productive learning process that is not dependent on a biased attitude. The authors argue that the ability to consider individual character traits when making value judgments regarding academic outcomes is an important property of competent and professional tutors (Reeves et al., 2015).
The perception of abilities and talents should not be accompanied by superficial judgments regarding the possible forces of students but should be based on a comprehensive assessment of personal characteristics. In other words, a number of factors form the end result of education, and not only knowledge and skills but also other aspects should be taken into account, for instance, working capacity, diligence, flexibility and other valuable qualities. In case tutors take these crucial criteria into account and base their evaluative opinions on a comprehensive analysis, this confirms the objectivity of the assessment approach, which, however, does not always happen and may cause attendant challenges.
In the field of online teaching, these consequences are complicated with additional difficulties. A tutor does not have direct contact with students and cannot have comprehensive data regarding their individual characteristics. As a result, possible inequity appears as a consequence of this gap. In addition, according to LaBeouf et al. (2016), in conditions of remote interaction, some students note logistical barriers, in particular, the inability to contribute to group work due to exclusively online interaction.
When individuals involved do not have direct contact with one another, this complicates the evaluation process and is a prerequisite for the biased assessment of academic performance. LaBeouf et al. (2016) state that many students do not understand how to work in groups remotely, which is reflected in their lack of learning effectiveness. Low scores and disapproval from tutors can be the consequences of such ignorance, which, however, cannot be justified enough to judge the knowledge and preparedness of the target audience. Thus, inequity in assessing people’s individual contribution to group work may have various negative implications for students, and in the field of online learning and remote contacts, these difficulties can be exacerbated significantly.
Correction of Inequity in Group Assessment
In the process of online teaching, developing group tasks and the organising joint discussions of a specific problem are the basic functions of tutors. However, when taking into account the aforementioned manifestations and consequences of potential bias and inequity in the assessment of these activities, some stimulating types of work can be promoted to create more objective conditions for evaluation.
According to SantamarĂa (2014), tutors’ activities should not be aimed at reproducing information but at working with the subjective experience of students. The cognitive interests, intentions, needs and personal aspirations of each team member are to be taken into account in order to make informed judgments regarding preparedness and contribution to the achievement of a common goal. A number of incentive events may be implemented to help the target audience to reach their academic potential.
Special exercises and tasks can be developed and promoted, and these guidelines should be based on modern communication methods, as well as personal and group support mechanisms. The principles of motivation and options for capturing student learning achievements are to be flexible so that defining the direction of project activities could not biased or unjust.
One of the purposes of teamwork is the joint choice of a strategy to achieve the ultimate goal when performing a specific task. Therefore, to reduce the risk of biased assessment, consultations with tutors are necessary at each stage, including the initial preparatory phase. LaBeouf et al. (2016) remark that interpersonal conflicts that are a significant deterrent to effective work often arise due to inconsistent student actions. The main role in their prevention and resolution is played by a tutor who can use some mandatory methods and requirements in this case. For instance, SantamarĂa (2014) notes that when a student reports, it is essential to position him or her psychologically to exclude the occurrence of a stressful situation.
In case of an unsatisfactory outcome, a person should understand that the results of specific activities do not meet the requirements of a particular curriculum program. Finally, insulting students is unacceptable in any possible way, including gender, racial, intellectual and other characteristics because this is one of the most pronounced manifestations of inequity. Following these principles can allow a tutor to achieve maximum objectivity in assessing tasks performed at the group level.
Tutor control is a prerequisite for creating a productive environment for teamwork. One of the valuable advantages of continuous monitoring is an opportunity to assign the tasks that correspond to the preparedness of all the group members and do not imply differentiating participants in accordance with the criterion of intellectual abilities. In addition, as Pardo and Siemens (2014) state, those tutors who interact with the target audience regularly can “deploy new assessment techniques that measure more accurately the right achievements” (p. 438). It is necessary to offer those assignments that can reveal the potential of each member of the group and provide an opportunity to make a personal contribution.
This position addresses the interpersonal conditions of student communication and minimises the likelihood of conflicts caused by dissatisfaction with one another. Moreover, Pardo and Siemens (2014) note that any tutor should respect the privacy of team participants and not discuss the shortcomings of a particular task openly, thereby heating the environment in a group and stimulating negative relationships among peers. All these factors are to be taken into account when planning a teamwork training and assessing its results to avoid inequity.
Conclusion
To maintain an unbiased attitude towards assessing the group activity of students, special communicative interaction strategies are to be promoted, and the objectivity of tutors is an important aspect that impedes inequity. Special principles of evaluation are maintained in the educational environment, including the sphere of online teaching. Specific behavioural approaches may be considered, in particular, the positioning theory, individual responsibility and leadership conduct. The consequences of inequity can be severe in both academic and social contexts. To overcome these challenges, special corrective mechanisms should be used, and the role of tutors is high in maintaining equity in the assessment process of student group activities.
References
Cruces, G., Domenech, C. G., & Gasparini, L. (2014). Inequality in education: Evidence for Latin America. In G. A. Cornia (Ed.), Falling inequality in Latin America. Policy changes and lessons (pp. 318-339). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fathi, M., Ghobakhloo, M., & Syberfeldt, A. (2019). An interpretive structural modeling of teamwork training in higher education. Education Sciences, 9(1), 16.
Gorur, R. (2014). Towards a sociology of measurement in education policy. European Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 58-72.
LaBeouf, J. P., Griffith, J. C., & Roberts, D. L. (2016). Faculty and student issues with group work: What is problematic with college group assignments and why? Journal of Education and Human Development, 5(1), 13-23.
Pardo, A., & Siemens, G. (2014). Ethical and privacy principles for learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 438-450.
Reeves, M. M., Mashiloane, L., Bowman, B., Richards, Z., & Koen, J. (2015). Developing equitable selection criteria for talent development programmes in inequitable contexts: Part 2. South African Journal of Higher Education, 29(1), 294-312.
SantamarĂa, L. J. (2014). Critical change for the greater good: Multicultural perceptions in educational leadership toward social justice and equity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 347-391.
Shah, N., & Lewis, C. M. (2019). Amplifying and attenuating inequity in collaborative learning: Toward an analytical framework. Cognition and Instruction, 37(4), 423-452.