Learning and Teaching Committee

 

Subject:        University Policy Statement on Group Working – Minimum Requirements

 

Origin:           Programme Development & Quality Team

 

Action Required

Learning and Teaching Committee is invited to recommend to Senate the adoption of the attached policy statement on group working.

 

Background

The statement has been devised at the request of the PDQ Team in the light of a study conducted by Derek Blease, formerly Director of Quality Enhancement, into the organisation and assessment of group work across the University.

 

The draft policy statement was circulated to all heads of department and teaching coordinators for comment.  Responses, either written, verbal or both, were received from all 21 academic departments.  The general conclusion was that departments are largely supportive of what the policy statement is trying to do, with only a small number of reservations. 

 

In particular, concern was expressed over the requirement that the assessment of group or team work must include an element of individual or peer assessment of both.  It was suggested that, where student cohorts are large, this may not be practicable.  In these circumstances the following suggestions were offered to mitigate the requirement:

 

(i)                  Exclude all modules where the module mark does not contribute to the award (all Foundation and Part A modules)

 

(ii)                Exclude all modules where the group work mark does not constitute a substantial proportion of the overall module mark.

 

The draft statement was brought forward to PDQ with the proposal that the relevant paragraph (para 4) be amended to take account of these concerns, by replacing

“The assessment of group or team work must include an element of either individual or peer assessment, or both” with:

 

“Where the assessment of group or team work counts towards the degree classification and comprises 50% or more of the overall module mark,  it must include an element of either individual or peer assessment or both.”

 

In order to define a substantial proportion, regard was had to information available from module specifications.  This reveals that amongst modules which contain assessed group or team work (including Part A), the most common proportions of the overall module mark attributed to group or teamwork are 25% (approx 19% of modules), 50% (approx 23% of modules) and 100% (16% of modules), being the only percentages reaching double figures.  Setting the threshold for inclusion at 50% or more of the overall module mark would appear to offer a reasonable balance between concerns expressed by both departments and students.

 

This amendment was endorsed by the PDQ Team and is incorporated in the attached version of the statement.

 

Curriculum Sub-Committee has also had the opportunity to comment, and following discussion on the threshold written into paragraph 4, has endorsed the statement as presented. 

 

LTC is also invited to note that Derek Blease has devised a ‘guide for staff’ on the organisation, management and assessment of group work, which will in due course be made available on-line.  This handles issues such as the development of group working skills, which it is not appropriate to cover in any detail in the broad policy statement.

 

University Policy Statement

Group Working - Minimum requirements

 

1.             This policy statement sets out the University’s minimum expectations for the organization, management and assessment of group work, whilst allowing the flexibility for departments to set standards consistent with best practice within their own discipline(s).  The overriding consideration should be to ensure that students are treated fairly and that they are not overburdened with group or team working activities at the expense of other modes of learning, teaching and assessment.

 

2.             Departments (e.g. through their Programme and/or Learning and Teaching Committees) must ensure that students have sufficient opportunity to experience group or team working within their programmes of study, such as to satisfy the requirements of the relevant Programme Specifications and Subject Benchmarks, the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) and any conditions stipulated by relevant Professional and/or Accrediting Bodies, and that the development of appropriate group or team working skills is incorporated in programme ILOs.

 

3.             Where appropriate, students should be provided with sufficient opportunities to demonstrate progression in their development of group or team working skills through module assessment.

 

4.             Where the assessment of group or team work counts towards the degree classification and comprises 50% or more of the overall module mark, it must include an element of either individual or peer assessment or both.

 

5.             Departments should formulate an overview of the typical group or team working experience of students in each of their programmes, and publish guidelines or a code of practice setting out the departmental norms, which may include reference to some or all of the following:

 

a) When group work should normally occur – departments may wish to consider the inclusion of formal training in group or team working in the first year of all programmes, either integrated into an existing  provision, or as part of a stand alone “key skills” module.  Where group or team work occurs at later stages in a programme, consideration might also be given to the inclusion of some form of skills “top-up”, providing students with the opportunity to demonstrate progression.

 

b) ILOs, student progression and Personal Development Planning – Departments may wish to give special consideration to the intended learning outcomes for modules where assessed group or team working is included.  In particular, they may wish to identify the specific skills to be taught and developed, to ensure that the assessment criteria test these, and to highlight the links between these and the relevant criteria to be addressed in the students’ Personal Development Planning (for example in RAPID or RAPID Express).

 

c) The proportion of a module assessment which may normally be attributed to group work – Departments may wish to consider setting an acceptable upper limit for the proportion of an overall module mark which can be awarded for group/team work.  Any requests to exceed that limit should be accompanied by a written proposal, setting out a valid educational rationale, which should be scrutinized by the appropriate programme committee.

 

d) Group size  - departments may wish to consider what would be the most appropriate range of group sizes for group work in their discipline(s), (e.g. 2-3, 3-5, 4-6 etc), taking into account the nature of the task(s), the roles to be fulfilled, and the forms of assessment to be employed.

 

e) Allocation of students to groups – departments may wish to consider the desirability of various forms of allocation of students to groups, for example, self selection, random allocation, grouping on the basis of ability/ past performance, or the completion of some form of aptitude test (e.g. Belbin).  They may also wish to consider the desirability of rotating roles within a group, the rotation of group membership for different group/team working tasks, and the pros and cons of trying to establish a gender balance within groups.

 

f)   Teaching group-working skills – Departments are encouraged to require that all students receive adequate tuition and support in the development of group/team working skills (preferably in the first year of their programme) prior to undertaking any assessed group/team working activity.  Where group/team working occurs in subsequent years, module tutors should be aware of the extent of previous training and be prepared to include an appropriate skills “top-up” prior to commencing the new activity.

 

g) Procedures for dealing with intra-group conflict – Departments may wish to consider formulating procedures for dealing with intra-group conflict.  These may involve the inclusion of “conflict resolution” as one aspect of group/team work training, as well as procedures to be consistently adopted by all staff when approached by students unable to resolve conflict.  Current practice across the University varies, but includes: (a) Tutor encourages students to manage conflict as a group working skill – intervenes as a last resort;  (b) Tutor encourages students to manage conflict as a group working skill – does not intervene;   (c) Tutor calls the group together and resolves the conflict;  (d) Tutor does nothing.   Example (a) would be considered preferable in most circumstances.

 

h) Procedures for dealing with student long-term absence or non-cooperation – Departments may wish to consider formulating procedures for dealing with the modification of assignment briefs and the allocation of group/team work marks in the event of long-term illness or non-cooperation.  In the case of long term illness, departments may wish to consider whether it is preferable to modify either the task or the assessment criteria for remaining group members. Where there is strong evidence of non cooperation, to have a policy to either reduce the mark awarded to the non cooperating student according to a pre-determined formula, or to employ a form of peer assessment.

 

i)   Assessment – whole group and individual marks – In the light of paragraph 4 above, departments may wish to consider what might be an acceptable balance between process and product elements, and whether, in some tasks, the assessment of group/team working skills (process) as such, is appropriate at all.  In cases involving a whole-group submission, departments may wish to formulate a policy on the use of self and/or peer assessment as a means of introducing an individual element  to the mark.  While the University does not wish to discourage tutors from using their own self and/or peer assessment approaches which are tailored to the needs of  specific modules, it would also encourage departments to consider the use of “web-pa”, a flexible on-line tool available at: http://eec.lboro.ac.uk/webpatour/tour/1.htm .  This tool has been designed to encourage student participation and reduce assessment workload, whilst allowing assessment criteria to remain “assignment specific”.

 

j)   Procedure for obtaining approval for non-standard arrangements – Departments are encouraged to consider the introduction of a procedure for dealing with non-standard arrangements, e.g. where the needs of a particular module require group or team work to be organised outside of the agreed departmental norms.  In such cases departments may require a written submission, setting out the educational rationale for the change, to be considered and approved by the relevant programme committee.

 

Derek Blease, October 2006