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.