A Students’ Preferences-Based Approach to Select Methods for Detecting and Handling Free-Riding

Abstract

Free-riding is a serious challenge in group projects. While there are various methods to reduce free-riding, marketing educators still face a difficult task when selecting an appropriate method for their course. In this study, we propose a students’ preferences-based approach that supports marketing educators with the selection of methods to detect and handle free-riding. To measure these preferences, students completed an online survey based on a choice task about two methods to detect free-riding and a ranking task about four methods to handle free-riding ( n = 254). Their answers were analyzed using chi-squared tests, Borda scores, and rank-ordered logit models. The results show that (a) neither Dutch nor international students have a clear preference for one of the two detection methods (the reporting system vs. the process evaluation system), (b) grade discussion (a possible reduction of the free-rider’s grade based on a conversation with the course coordinator about each student’s contribution) is the most preferred method to handle free-riding, and (c) international students have a stronger preference for stricter handling methods. Marketing educators can apply the proposed approach, or use our specific findings, for designing methods to reduce free-riding in their courses.

The Impact of Live Cases on Student Skill Development in Marketing Courses

“…In short, live cases create a real-world pressure cooker for student teams that can easily lead to group conflict. Instructor options and student preferences toward detecting and punishing free-riding are wide-ranging (van den Herik & Benning, 2021). Some faculty even give students the ability (burden) of dealing with this conflict by allowing groups to expel free-riding members (Bove & Davies, 2009).…”

Reducing free-riding in group projects in line with students’ preferences: Does it matter if there is more at stake?

“…method (comparable to member expulsion), but they did not test the method against other methods-also not against the situation where no method was used. Furthermore, we find that students clearly prefer a conversation with the coordinator without a sanction, whereas such a method was least preferred by students in van den Herik and Benning (2021).…”

“…Team size 2 students 3 students 4 students A small(er) team size is expected to lead to less free-riding (Aggarwal and O'Brien, 2008;Strong and Anderson, 1990) Team formation approach Self-selection Random assignment Assignment based on schedule availability and motivation Self-selection and assignment based on schedule availability and motivation are expected to lead to less free-riding than random assignment (Bacon et al, 2001;Chapman et al, 2006;Harding, 2018;Kutlubay and Uslay, 2019;Strong and Anderson, 1990) Number of peer process evaluations 0 peer process evaluations 1 peer process evaluation 2 peer process evaluations The use of (multiple) peer evaluations is expected to lead to less free-riding (Aggarwal and O'Brien, 2008;Brooks and Ammons, 2003;van den Herik and Benning, 2021) Type of grade Common grade Divided grade…”

Cultivating Effective Marketing Student Teams: Making Instructors’ Tacit Theories Visible

“…Prior training in team skills, for example, can help students work better in teams (Chen et al, 2004; Deeter-Schmelz & Ramsey, 1998; Kapp, 2009; Kennedy & Dull, 2007; Prichard et al, 2006; Riebe et al, 2016). Peer evaluation mechanisms can help mitigate the well-documented challenges of social loafing (Brooks & Ammons, 2003; Dommeyer, 2012; Pieterse & Thompson, 2010; Strong & Anderson, 1990; van den Herik & Benning, 2021; Williams et al, 1991). This stream of research focuses on how educators can deploy insights about student team effectiveness to design explicit strategies and high-level interventions.…”

“…Much is known about students’ characteristics, behaviors, and outcomes as they engage in teams on one hand (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008; van den Herik & Benning, 2021) and the interventions conducted by the educator-as-designer on the other hand (Chad, 2012; Kapp, 2009; Riebe et al, 2016), but less is known about how knowledge of cultivating effective student teams is imagined and implemented by the educator-as-frontline-instructor. Established theories of how to cultivate effective student teams suggest that instructors are well-versed in these theories.…”