Discussion

The self-assessment procedure is acceptable
We show that for 1st and 3rd year undergraduate students in life sciences and medicine, the self-assessment procedure is fully acceptable and has positive effects on group working and group beliefs for a large majority (70%) of participants. Given the previously reported positive effect on the quality of motivation in secondary-school collaborative projects, with a shift towards more internalised regulation (autonomous motivation) (Kramer et al., 2022), and the overall acceptability reported here, we conclude that group self-assessment is desirable and acceptable in collaborative projects of sufficient size and duration. The procedure would improve the working experience of the group, enhance appropriate groupinternal dynamics (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998), and remove the fear that members who do not deliver on their part of the project will still receive the full project score (Karau & Williams, 1993).

Heterogeneity of replies

The range of responses, with more contrasting negative and positive responses, increases with questions about the possible influence of group self-assessment on group work and group beliefs. This may reflect different underlying attitudes among students. Those who have a high level of self-regulation coupled with internal causality can fully engage in the collaborative project based on their interest and do not need rules or assessment to feel safe or more committed to a collaborative project. Those who have had negative experiences in the past, often due to bullying, ”social loafing” (Harkins & Jackson, 1985) or ”free riding” (Strong & Anderson, 1990), may feel much relieved and be more generous with ratings of impacts on their experience or beliefs. Conversely, regular good experiences with group work will lower the perceived impact (good functioning seems natural). The way in which pedagogical interventions are experienced is always sensitive to the wide range of motivational states of students (Vallerand et al., 1993), and quite conflicting opinions are the rule. However, negative responses here do not imply a rejection of the procedure, but simply that certain effects of the procedure, as might be inferred from the literature on group work (DeChurch & Haas, 2008; Karau & Williams, 1993;van den Bossche et al., 2006), are not validated by all students.

Improvement of the scale of fairness

The ’fairness’ scale of the procedure has low consistency, even though the questions appear to be valid by definition, i.e. they appear to be highly relevant at face value. Different versions and combinations have been tested, but somehow never achieved satisfactory consistency. The problem may lie in the distinction between self-assessment and assessment of others. The survey responses show that some feel unable to assess themselves fairly but can assess others correctly, while others feel inhibited about assessing others. However, this is really about perception, because in reality, as the results of the analysis of many groups have shown, there is generally good agreement between the self-assessments and the assessments by other members at the end of the collaborative project (as shown by the ”average group coherence” of the evaluation report) (see figure 1b,Kramer et al., 2022).

Acknowledgements

Prof Dr Hermelijn Smith and Dr Bart Everts, University of Leiden Medical School, the Netherlands, are acknowledged for employing the group self-assessment procedure in a science-writing blog project of a Master course and sharing the acceptance survey outcomes.

Conflict of Interest statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Ethics Statement

In accordance with APA ethical compliance guidelines this study does not require written consent from students because it involves normal educational practices with respect for confidentiality. Information is treated and published anonymously so that disclosing responses would not expose participants to criminal or civil liability or harm their financial standing, employability or reputation.

References

Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C., Bassett, P., & Chowne A. (2006). The effect of a new approach to group work on pupil-pupil and teacher-pupil interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology , 98(4), 750-765.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.750
Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1/2), 153-172.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00078-8
Brown, R.W. (1995, November 1-4). Autorating: Getting individual marks from team marks and enhancing teamwork . Proceedings Frontiers in Education, 25th Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA.