Groupwork and formative assessment

1. Groupwork and formative assessment Mark Freeman

2. Outline • Aims & rationale • Literature review • Process • Easy & (almost) effortless wins • Worthwhile wins • In/Out-of-class decision based assessments • Self & peer feedback • Holistic in-class ‘team-based learning’ • Conclusions • Q & A

3. Aims & rationale Aims • To identify how groupwork can foster learning and valuable graduate qualities …..…efficiently Rationale • Valuable GQ eg. ACCI (02); AIG(06); UniSA (07) • But not hitting mark • Sweet & Michaelsen (2006) Lisk (2003) • Volet (1998) • BCA (2006) • UniSA (2006) • Education is not providing increasingly vital skills to make innovation thrive. • “Management education was focussed on finance and marketing but was not providing graduates with the ‘soft’ skills such as teamwork, that enabled innovative use of these capabilities”

4. Literature review Models • Deep approaches desirable (Trigwell & Prosser, 1999) • Social constructivism (Rust et al, 2003; Bandura, 1997) • Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, Mourning (Tuckman, 1965, 2001). Whelan (2004) has similar where trust is crucial New groups differ to LT developed groups (Birmingham 04) • Less trust in & attraction to group • Little identification with group or its goals • Perceptions of others stereotyped • Decisions socially (not task) focussed • Less willing to disagree • Face-saving conflict resolution (eg. voting not reasoned consensus) • Less able to complete difficult intellectual tasks

5. Getting the most out of groupwork • What? • Product • analyse case • report as consultant • produce wiki • present orally/online • debate online • reflect journal/online • develop solution • Decision • decide optimal business (simulation) inputs • decide best outcome of application exercise • choose best MCQ quiz option • rate peers’ presentation • Why? • Where? • What? • How? • Preparing • Forming • Managing • Formative • Summative

6. Not ‘hands off’ management Preparing • Focus on peer learning not avoiding free riding • Value diversity (Baron, 2006) • Explain how to give/receive feedback & why • Engage team building exercises Forming • Teacher random/ability • Students with/out criteria Managing • Support thru stages (forming, storming, norming etc) • Who? Teacher, peers, self or all

7. Easy wins that promote feedback Quick wins • Submission of individual (not marked) concept map before teams formed • Permanent teams across semester & >1 assessments • In-class same team quiz after individual quiz (both assessable) & auto marked later by scanner (Almost) effortless wins • In-class same team quiz after individual quiz (both assessed) facilitated by IFAT forms or clickers • In-class team application exercise with simultaneous decision and reporting with reasons marked • Peer assessment of group products by peer groups facilitated by paper rubric or clickers

8. Worthwhile win 1: In/Out-of-class • Multi-cycle technology-supported business simulation that require regular decision inputs that are interdependent eg • SmartSims http://www.smartsims.com/ • CapSim http://www.capsim.com/ • Integrated business experience (Oklahoma Uni) • Capstone unit: run real business over one semester • Teams plan, fund, implement business idea • Local angel funding

9. Worthwhile win 2: Self/peer feedback • Self then peer evaluation • Judgment • Holistic • Criteria (NB. Student developed) • Enabling technology • in-class on paper • online • Applied • peer review as total assessment (eg. CPR) • additional assessment component to academic (eg. iPeer) • moderating academic’s team assessment mark (eg. SPARK) • simply formative • Followed by in-class feedback sessions

10. How does SPARK work? Rating scale: 0 = no contribution 1 = less than team average 2 = contribution per team average 3 = above team average

11. Aggregate factors produced by SPARK system SAPA factor 1.1 indicates overrate own contribution to team by 110% SPA factor Team A: 12/20 12 x 1.0 = 12 Team C: 15/20 Team B: 12/20 15 x 0.9 = 13.5 15 x 1.25 = 18.8 12 x 0.9 = 10.8 12 x 1.25 = 15.0 15 x 0.75 = 11.3 15 x 1.16 = 17.4 12 x 1.16 = 13.9 12 x 0.75 = 9.0 How will SPARK affect marks?

12. In-class reflective feedback sessions • Reflect on team performance and dynamics • Reflect on aggregate self & peer ratings • Reveal own shortcomings • Express positive contributions of others • Focus on improving collaboration not avoiding free-riding and provide gentle suggestions to peers • Consider response to scenarios

13. Pre-class Pre-class In-class In-class 5 per course 1 or 2 per course Worthwhile win 3: Team-based learning Prepare Indiv quiz Team quiz Contingent teaching Team problem Discuss self/peer feedback Class discuss Rate self/peers

14. Team-based Traditional Out of Class In Class Readings Convey Course Concepts ReadinessAssessment Lecture Apply Course Concepts In Class Out of Class

15. Holistic “Team-Based Learning” • Michaelsen et al (2002) & www.teambasedlearning.org • Students (eg. Levine et al, 04) • Actively engaged applying not passively listening • Challenges previous groupwork prejudices • Develops collaboration and communication skills • Obvious fun and hum • Achievement and learning (& in national exams) • Staff (eg. Thompson et al; 07) • Transformation of class time • Job satisfaction • Initial cost and risk of adopting – but can adopt incrementally

16. Student perceptions survey

17. Conclusion 1: Team formation Process • Distribute diverse skills & abilities • Transparently form eg. in-class • Separate subgroups • Keep largish (5 to 7 members) Scope • Permanent over semester • Permanent across multiple assessments • Have some, preferably lots, of in-class time • Primarily for making decisions

18. Conclusion 2: Teams work on DECISIONS Decisions eg. in TBL • Negotiating assessment weights of indiv/team quiz • MCQ individual quiz • MCQ team quiz • Team application problem • Rating self and peer contributions Benefits • Promote learning of essential concepts or skills • Encourages application • Builds team cohesiveness • Ensures individual accountability • Develops critical evaluation • Highlights the positive value of groups

19. Conclusion 3: Support feedback loop Why? Marks + learning (ie. formative + summative) When? Regularly and immediately if possible How? Technology can be efficient & accurate • Scanners/clickers (for in class individual quizzes) • IFAT forms (for in-class team quiz) • Coloured cards (for in-class team problems) • Self and peer evaluation system (online or paper rubric) Peer feedback is very powerful • During completion of immediate feedback team quiz • Arguing through the team application problems • Multiple structured in-class formative feedback opportunities using peer ratings

20. References Papers and books • Epstein, M.L., Epstein, B.B., & Brosvic, G.M. (2001). Immediate feedback during academic testing. Psychological Reports. 88, 889-894. • Freeman M, McKenzie J. (2002) ‘SPARK: A Confidential Web-Based Template for Self and Peer Assessment of Student Teamwork: Benefits of Evaluating Across Different Subjects', British Journal of Educational Technology, vol.33:5, pp. 551 - 569. • Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A.B & Fink, L.D. (2004) Team-Based Learning: A Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching. Stylus Publishing, Sterling VA • Pelaez, N., (2002) “Problem-Based Writing with Peer Review Improves Academic Performance in Physiology,” Advances in Physiology Education, 26, pp174-184. • Race, P., (2000) 500 Tips on Group Learning. Routledge, London. Good websites • http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/tla/employability_enterprise/web0304_student_employability_profile_business_management_accountancy.pdf • http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/ • http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/gradquals/staff/program/assessment-table.pdf • http://ipeer.apsc.ubc.ca/wiki/index.php/IPeer • http://teaching.econ.usyd.edu.au/groupwork/

21. Thank you …. Q&A

22. Team application problems • Same Problem • so whole class applying minds first in teams • later whole class discussing finer points • Specific Choice • time on team decision not spent developing a product • impossible to complete without using course concepts • Simultaneous Report • decision makesresults of student thinking highly visible • opportunity to discuss contrasts in reasoning • Significant Learning • authentic, interesting, real world application • impossible to complete as individual

23. Why teamwork? Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry (2002) • Communication: productive & harmonious relations • Team work: productive relationships & outcomes • Problem-solving: productive outcomes Australian Industry Group’ (2006) • Want “people who are flexible and adaptive, willing to learn on the job, team workers, technically competent and committed to excellence”. Business Council of Australia (2006) • Education not providing increasingly vital skills to make innovation thrive • “Management education was focussed on finance and marketing but was not providing graduates with the ‘soft’ skills such as teamwork, that enabled innovative use of these capabilities”

24. GQ4: work collaboratively as a professional • use logical and rational argument to persuade others, to negotiate with others • work collaboratively with different groups, identify the needs of others and build positive relationships • provide leadership within a team context by understanding responsibilities for organisation, planning, influencing and negotiating • work in a team (cooperate with all team members, share ideas, forgo personal recognition, negotiate solutions when opinions differ, resolve conflict, recognise strengths of other team members, share responsibility, convey a shared vision for the team, display a commitment to make the team function effectively)