Group assessments: dilemmas facing lecturers in multicultural tertiary classrooms

Abstract

Group assessments: Dilemmas facing lecturers in multicultural tertiary classrooms'Group is good, and group is good for curing all social ills' was the cynical observation of one of the lecturers in this study. Her comment reflects the uneasiness of lecturers at tertiary institutions with the notion that the educational advantages of group assessments far outweigh the disadvantages and that such an approach promotes the integration of minority groups in multicultural universities. In this article, we reflect on the dilemmas facing lecturers in multicultural tertiary classrooms when they adopt group assessment as a means of evaluation and highlight those challenges which often jeopardise the successful implementation of this type of practice.Keywords: group assessments; implementation; lecturers; multicultural; tertiary BackgroundThere is much research to support the contention that group work, or co-operative learning, is an effective tool for improving academic performance (Johnston & Miles, 2004;Karakowsky & McBey, 2001;Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998a, 1998bLejk, Wyvill & Farrow, 1997;Zhining, Johnson & Johnson, 1995). Researchers argue that students are involved in tasks that could not be attempted alone; multiple skills are brought to bear on problems and conflicting views are aired and considered (Young & Henquinet, 2000;McCorkle, Reardon, Alexander, Kling, Harris & Iyer, 1999;Gatfield, 1999). Olivera and Straus (2004, p.455) suggest that working in groups "fosters transfer of learning to individuals" and that this transfer can be attributed mainly to the "cognitive elements of group interaction". While the benefits of group work are clear, there is a need to differentiate between co-operative work and collaborative work, particularly when group assessment is involved. Panitz (1996) contends that lecturers move uneasily between the tenets underpinning co-operative learning and those that support collaborative learning. According to Panitz and Brufee (1995) an important difference between the two approaches appears to be the teacher's authority. In co-operative learning, teachers assume much responsibility. Bruffee (1995, p.16) notes they 'intervene frequently and randomly in the work of the groups'. In the collaborative approach, group governance 'remains as much as possible in the hands of the students' (Bruffee, 1995, p.17). Bruffee argues convincingly that the former approach, while suitable for students at school, is too restrictive for tertiary students and that the lecturer's vigilance in ensuring accountability undercuts one of the principal aims of tertiary education: that of shifting authority from lecturer to student groups. He points out (1995, p.18) that the controls imposed by co-operative learning 'are likely … to frustrate and discourage adolescents and adults by leaving in place, unquestioned, the hierarchical social structure of traditional learning'. Bruffee further asserts that 'self-governed peer relationships' are the advantages to be gained from collaborative learning but concedes tha...

Students’ Perception of Group Work and Knowledge Building in an Economics Unit

“…This signifies that in group work, students take responsibility for advancing the group's understanding as they ask questions and built on each other's thinking to construct collaborative explanations (HmeloSilver and Barrows, 2008). This also confirms that if group assessments are employed correctly, it is undoubtedly they have the potential to promote better student interaction and understanding and allow a sharing of different views and knowledge (Strauss and Alice U, 2007 (Elbers and Streefland, 2000).…”

“…In order to facilitate the process of group work and improve knowledge building, more inclusive practices, for example a briefing on group work, is recommended so that students are involved in the group process and the confidence of less assertive students can be improved. Also, there should be sufficient time for students to be pre-taught how to form and maintain workable groups and strategies to help them deal with conflicts (Strauss & Alice U, 2007). Furthermore, for some students where this is their first exposure to a group assignment that deals with the complexities of real world events, guidance is needed from the lecturer, team leaders, and members.…”

Using Prewriting Tasks in L2 Writing Classes: Insights from Three Experiments

“…Instructors do not have enough class time to administer collaborative writing tasks, which generally take students longer to complete than individual writing tasks (Storch, 2005). Furthermore, because students' EAP writing class grades count toward their overall grade point average, there is often a preference for individual assessment rather than pair or group assessment tasks because of issues with fairness and reliability of group assessments (Kagan, 1995;Strauss & U, 2007).…”

“…Instructors do not have enough class time to administer collaborative writing tasks, which generally take students longer to complete than individual writing tasks (Storch, 2005). Furthermore, because students' EAP writing class grades count toward their overall grade point average, there is often a preference for individual assessment rather than pair or group assessment tasks because of issues with fairness and reliability of group assessments (Kagan, 1995;Strauss & U, 2007).As part of our overall research agenda to create effective tasks for use in our EAP writing classes, we were interested in whether collaborative prewriting tasks provided students with opportunities to discuss and evaluate content and organization, while still maintaining the programmatic emphasis on individual writing. In other words, the tasks allowed students to collaborate during the planning phase, but they individually composed written texts that were assessed as part of their class grade.…”

Investigating an Equitable Approach to Individualising Grades for Wiki-focused Project-based Learning in an English for Academic Purposes Context

“…The term "Free riders" (Strauss & U-Mackey, 2007) has been used to describe group work participants who contribute minimally, or decidedly less than other participants within the cooperative learning process. It is the opinion of this researcher through experiential reflection that free riding can create a feeling of resentment leading to frustration and stress for other PBL group members who perceive they are having to compensate for the lack of involvement.…”