is group assignment

• Utility Menu

GA4 Tracking Code

fa51e2b1dc8cca8f7467da564e77b5ea

• Make a Gift
• Join Our Email List

Many students have had little experience working in groups in an academic setting. While there are many excellent books and articles describing group processes, this guide is intended to be short and simply written for students who are working in groups, but who may not be very interested in too much detail. It also provides teachers (and students) with tips on assigning group projects, ways to organize groups, and what to do when the process goes awry.

Some reasons to ask students to work in groups

Asking students to work in small groups allows students to learn interactively. Small groups are good for:

• generating a broad array of possible alternative points of view or solutions to a problem
• giving students a chance to work on a project that is too large or complex for an individual
• allowing students with different backgrounds to bring their special knowledge, experience, or skills to a project, and to explain their orientation to others
• giving students a chance to teach each other
• giving students a structured experience so they can practice skills applicable to professional situations

Some benefits of working in groups (even for short periods of time in class)

• Students who have difficulty talking in class may speak in a small group.
• More students, overall, have a chance to participate in class.
• Talking in groups can help overcome the anonymity and passivity of a large class or a class meeting in a poorly designed room.
• Students who expect to participate actively prepare better for class.

Caveat: If you ask students to work in groups, be clear about your purpose, and communicate it to them. Students who fear that group work is a potential waste of valuable time may benefit from considering the reasons and benefits above.

Large projects over a period of time

Faculty asking students to work in groups over a long period of time can do a few things to make it easy for the students to work:

• The biggest student complaint about group work is that it takes a lot of time and planning. Let students know about the project at the beginning of the term, so they can plan their time.
• At the outset, provide group guidelines and your expectations.
• Monitor the groups periodically to make sure they are functioning effectively.
• If the project is to be completed outside of class, it can be difficult to find common times to meet and to find a room. Some faculty members provide in-class time for groups to meet. Others help students find rooms to meet in.

Forming the group

• Forming the group. Should students form their own groups or should they be assigned? Most people prefer to choose whom they work with. However, many students say they welcome both kinds of group experiences, appreciating the value of hearing the perspective of another discipline, or another background.
• Size. Appropriate group size depends on the nature of the project.  If the group is small and one person drops out, can the remaining people do the work? If the group is large, will more time be spent on organizing themselves and trying to make decisions than on productive work?
• Resources for students. Provide a complete class list, with current email addresses. (Students like having this anyway so they can work together even if group projects are not assigned.)
• Students that don't fit. You might anticipate your response to the one or two exceptions of a person who really has difficulty in the group. After trying various remedies, is there an out—can this person join another group? work on an independent project?

Organizing the work

Unless part of the goal is to give people experience in the process of goal-setting, assigning tasks, and so forth, the group will be able to work more efficiently if they are provided with some of the following:

• Clear goals. Why are they working together? What are they expected to accomplish?
• Ways to break down the task into smaller units
• Ways to allocate responsibility for different aspects of the work
• Ways to allocate organizational responsibility
• A sample time line with suggested check points for stages of work to be completed

Caveat: Setting up effective small group assignments can take a lot of faculty time and organization.

Getting Started

• Groups work best if people know each others' names and a bit of their background and experience, especially those parts that are related to the task at hand. Take time to introduce yourselves.
• Be sure to include everyone when considering ideas about how to proceed as a group. Some may never have participated in a small group in an academic setting. Others may have ideas about what works well. Allow time for people to express their inexperience and hesitations as well as their experience with group projects.
• Most groups select a leader early on, especially if the work is a long-term project. Other options for leadership in long-term projects include taking turns for different works or different phases of the work.
• Everyone needs to discuss and clarify the goals of the group's work. Go around the group and hear everyone's ideas (before discussing them) or encourage divergent thinking by brainstorming. If you miss this step, trouble may develop part way through the project. Even though time is scarce and you may have a big project ahead of you, groups may take some time to settle in to work. If you anticipate this, you may not be too impatient with the time it takes to get started.

Organizing the Work

• Break up big jobs into smaller pieces. Allocate responsibility for different parts of the group project to different individuals or teams. Do not forget to account for assembling pieces into final form.
• Develop a timeline, including who will do what, in what format, by when. Include time at the end for assembling pieces into final form. (This may take longer than you anticipate.) At the end of each meeting, individuals should review what work they expect to complete by the following session.

Understanding and Managing Group Processes

• Groups work best if everyone has a chance to make strong contributions to the discussion at meetings and to the work of the group project.
• At the beginning of each meeting, decide what you expect to have accomplished by the end of the meeting.
• Someone (probably not the leader) should write all ideas, as they are suggested, on the board, a collaborative document, or on large sheets of paper. Designate a recorder of the group's decisions. Allocate responsibility for group process (especially if you do not have a fixed leader) such as a time manager for meetings and someone who periodically says that it is time to see how things are going (see below).
• What leadership structure does the group want? One designated leader? rotating leaders? separately assigned roles?
• Are any more ground rules needed, such as starting meetings on time, kinds of interruptions allowed, and so forth?
• Is everyone contributing to discussions? Can discussions be managed differently so all can participate? Are people listening to each other and allowing for different kinds of contributions?
• Are all members accomplishing the work expected of them? Is there anything group members can do to help those experiencing difficulty?
• Are there disagreements or difficulties within the group that need to be addressed? (Is someone dominating? Is someone left out?)
• Is outside help needed to solve any problems?
• Is everyone enjoying the work?

Including Everyone and Their Ideas

Groups work best if everyone is included and everyone has a chance to contribute ideas. The group's task may seem overwhelming to some people, and they may have no idea how to go about accomplishing it. To others, the direction the project should take may seem obvious. The job of the group is to break down the work into chunks, and to allow everyone to contribute. The direction that seems obvious to some may turn out not to be so obvious after all. In any event, it will surely be improved as a result of some creative modification.

Encouraging Ideas

The goal is to produce as many ideas as possible in a short time without evaluating them. All ideas are carefully listened to but not commented on and are usually written on the board or large sheets of paper so everyone can see them, and so they don't get forgotten or lost. Take turns by going around the group—hear from everyone, one by one.

One specific method is to generate ideas through brainstorming. People mention ideas in any order (without others' commenting, disagreeing or asking too many questions). The advantage of brainstorming is that ideas do not become closely associated with the individuals who suggested them. This process encourages creative thinking, if it is not rushed and if all ideas are written down (and therefore, for the time-being, accepted). A disadvantage: when ideas are suggested quickly, it is more difficult for shy participants or for those who are not speaking their native language. One approach is to begin by brainstorming and then go around the group in a more structured way asking each person to add to the list.

Examples of what to say:

• Why don't we take a minute or two for each of us to present our views?
• Let's get all our ideas out before evaluating them. We'll clarify them before we organize or evaluate them.
• We'll discuss all these ideas after we hear what everyone thinks.
• You don't have to agree with her, but let her finish.
• Let's spend a few more minutes to see if there are any possibilities we haven't thought of, no matter how unlikely they seem.

Group Leadership

• The leader is responsible for seeing that the work is organized so that it will get done. The leader is also responsible for understanding and managing group interactions so that the atmosphere is positive.
• The leader must encourage everyone's contributions with an eye to accomplishing the work. To do this, the leader must observe how the group's process is working. (Is the group moving too quickly, leaving some people behind? Is it time to shift the focus to another aspect of the task?)
• The leader must encourage group interactions and maintain a positive atmosphere. To do this the leader must observe the way people are participating as well as be aware of feelings communicated non-verbally. (Are individuals' contributions listened to and appreciated by others? Are people arguing with other people, rather than disagreeing with their ideas? Are some people withdrawn or annoyed?)
• The leader must anticipate what information, materials or other resources the group needs as it works.
• The leader is responsible for beginning and ending on time. The leader must also organize practical support, such as the room, chalk, markers, food, breaks.

(Note: In addition to all this, the leader must take part in thc discussion and participate otherwise as a group member. At these times, the leader must be careful to step aside from the role of leader and signal participation as an equal, not a dominant voice.)

Concerns of Individuals That May Affect Their Participation

• How do I fit in? Will others listen to me? Am I the only one who doesn't know everyone else? How can I work with people with such different backgrounds and expericnce?
• Who will make the decisions? How much influence can I have?
• What do I have to offer to the group? Does everyone know more than I do? Does anyone know anything, or will I have to do most of the work myself?

Characteristics of a Group that is Performing Effectively

• All members have a chance to express themselves and to influence the group's decisions. All contributions are listened to carefully, and strong points acknowledged. Everyone realizes that the job could not be done without the cooperation and contribution of everyone else.
• Differences are dealt with directly with the person or people involved. The group identifies all disagreements, hears everyone's views and tries to come to an agreement that makes sense to everyone. Even when a group decision is not liked by someone, that person will follow through on it with the group.
• The group encourages everyone to take responsibility, and hard work is recognized. When things are not going well, everyone makes an effort to help each other. There is a shared sense of pride and accomplishment.

Focusing on a Direction

After a large number of ideas have been generated and listed (e.g. on the board), the group can categorize and examine them. Then the group should agree on a process for choosing from among the ideas. Advantages and disadvantages of different plans can be listed and then voted on. Some possibilities can be eliminated through a straw vote (each group member could have 2 or 3 votes). Or all group members could vote for their first, second, and third choices. Alternatively, criteria for a successful plan can be listed, and different alternatives can be voted on based on the criteria, one by one.

Categorizing and evaluating ideas

• We have about 20 ideas here. Can we sort them into a few general categories?
• When we evaluate each others' ideas, can we mention some positive aspects before expressing concerns?
• Could you give us an example of what you mean?
• Who has dealt with this kind of problem before?
• What are the pluses of that approach? The minuses?
• We have two basic choices. Let's brainstorm. First let's look at the advantages of the first choice, then the disadvantages.
• Let's try ranking these ideas in priority order. The group should try to come to an agreement that makes sense to everyone.

Making a decision

After everyone's views are heard and all points of agreement and disagreement are identified, the group should try to arrive at an agreement that makes sense to everyone.

• There seems to be some agreement here. Is there anyone who couldn't live with solution #2?
• Are there any objections to going that way?
• You still seem to have worries about this solution. Is there anything that could be added or taken away to make it more acceptable? We're doing fine. We've agreed on a great deal. Let's stay with this and see if we can work this last issue through.
• It looks as if there are still some major points of disagreement. Can we go back and define what those issues are and work on them rather than forcing a decision now.

How People Function in Groups

If a group is functioning well, work is getting done and constructive group processes are creating a positive atmosphere. In good groups the individuals may contribute differently at different times. They cooperate and human relationships are respected. This may happen automatically or individuals, at different times, can make it their job to maintain the atmospbere and human aspects of the group.

Roles That Contribute to the Work

Initiating —taking the initiative, at any time; for example, convening the group, suggesting procedures, changing direction, providing new energy and ideas. (How about if we.... What would happen if... ?)

Seeking information or opinions —requesting facts, preferences, suggestions and ideas. (Could you say a little more about... Would you say this is a more workable idea than that?)

Giving information or opinions —providing facts, data, information from research or experience. (ln my experience I have seen... May I tell you what I found out about...? )

Questioning —stepping back from what is happening and challenging the group or asking other specific questions about the task. (Are we assuming that... ? Would the consequence of this be... ?)

Clarifying —interpreting ideas or suggestions, clearing up confusions, defining terms or asking others to clarify. This role can relate different contributions from different people, and link up ideas that seem unconnected. (lt seems that you are saying... Doesn't this relate to what [name] was saying earlier?)

Summarizing —putting contributions into a pattern, while adding no new information. This role is important if a group gets stuck. Some groups officially appoint a summarizer for this potentially powerful and influential role. (If we take all these pieces and put them together... Here's what I think we have agreed upon so far... Here are our areas of disagreement...)

Roles That Contribute to the Atmosphere

Supporting —remembering others' remarks, being encouraging and responsive to others. Creating a warm, encouraging atmosphere, and making people feel they belong helps the group handle stresses and strains. People can gesture, smile, and make eye-contact without saying a word. Some silence can be supportive for people who are not native speakers of English by allowing them a chance to get into discussion. (I understand what you are getting at...As [name] was just saying...)

Observing —noticing the dynamics of the group and commenting. Asking if others agree or if they see things differently can be an effective way to identify problems as they arise. (We seem to be stuck... Maybe we are done for now, we are all worn out... As I see it, what happened just a minute ago.. Do you agree?)

Mediating —recognizing disagreements and figuring out what is behind the differences. When people focus on real differences, that may lead to striking a balance or devising ways to accommodate different values, views, and approaches. (I think the two of you are coming at this from completely different points of view... Wait a minute. This is how [name/ sees the problem. Can you see why she may see it differently?)

Reconciling —reconciling disagreements. Emphasizing shared views among members can reduce tension. (The goal of these two strategies is the same, only the means are different… Is there anything that these positions have in common?)

Compromising —yielding a position or modifying opinions. This can help move the group forward. (Everyone else seems to agree on this, so I'll go along with... I think if I give in on this, we could reach a decision.)

Making a personal comment —occasional personal comments, especially as they relate to the work. Statements about one's life are often discouraged in professional settings; this may be a mistake since personal comments can strengthen a group by making people feel human with a lot in common.

Humor —funny remarks or good-natured comments. Humor, if it is genuinely good-natured and not cutting, can be very effective in relieving tension or dealing with participants who dominate or put down others. Humor can be used constructively to make the work more acceptable by providing a welcome break from concentration. It may also bring people closer together, and make the work more fun.

All the positive roles turn the group into an energetic, productive enterprise. People who have not reflected on these roles may misunderstand the motives and actions of people working in a group. If someone other than the leader initiates ideas, some may view it as an attempt to take power from the leader. Asking questions may similarly be seen as defying authority or slowing down the work of the group. Personal anecdotes may be thought of as trivializing the discussion. Leaders who understand the importance of these many roles can allow and encourage them as positive contributions to group dynamics. Roles that contribute to the work give the group a sense of direction and achievement. Roles contributing to the human atmosphere give the group a sense of cooperation and goodwill.

Some Common Problems (and Some Solutions)

Floundering —While people are still figuring out the work and their role in the group, the group may experience false starts and circular discussions, and decisions may be postponed.

• Here's my understanding of what we are trying to accomplish... Do we all agree?
• What would help us move forward: data? resources?
• Let's take a few minutes to hear everyone's suggestions about how this process might work better and what we should do next.

Dominating or reluctant participants —Some people might take more than their share of the discussion by talking too often, asserting superiority, telling lengthy stories, or not letting others finish. Sometimes humor can be used to discourage people from dominating. Others may rarely speak because they have difficulty getting in the conversation. Sometimes looking at people who don't speak can be a non-verbal way to include them. Asking quiet participants for their thoughts outside the group may lead to their participation within the group.

• How would we state the general problem? Could we leave out the details for a moment? Could we structure this part of the discussion by taking turns and hearing what everyone has to say?
• Let's check in with each other about how the process is working: Is everyone contributing to discussions? Can discussions be managed differently so we can all participate? Are we all listening to each other?

Digressions and tangents —Too many interesting side stories can be obstacles to group progress. It may be time to take another look at the agenda and assign time estimates to items. Try to summarize where the discussion was before the digression. Or, consider whether there is something making the topic easy to avoid.

• Can we go back to where we were a few minutes ago and see what we were trying to do ?
• Is there something about the topic itself that makes it difficult to stick to?

Getting Stuck —Too little progress can get a group down. It may be time for a short break or a change in focus. However, occasionally when a group feels that it is not making progress, a solution emerges if people simply stay with the issue.

• What are the things that are helping us solve this problem? What's preventing us from solving this problem?
• I understand that some of you doubt whether anything new will happen if we work on this problem. Are we willing to give it a try for the next fifteen minutes?

Rush to work —Usually one person in the group is less patient and more action-oriented than the others. This person may reach a decision more quickly than the others and then pressure the group to move on before others are ready.

• Are we all ready-to make a decision on this?
• What needs to be done before we can move ahead?
• Let's go around and see where everyone stands on this.

Feuds —Occasionally a conflict (having nothing to do with the subject of the group) carries over into the group and impedes its work. It may be that feuding parties will not be able to focus until the viewpoint of each is heard. Then they must be encouraged to lay the issue aside.

• So, what you are saying is... And what you are saying is... How is that related to the work here?
• If we continue too long on this, we won't be able to get our work done. Can we agree on a time limit and then go on?

For more information...

James Lang, " Why Students Hate Group Projects (and How to Change That) ," The Chronicle of Higher Education (17 June 2022).

Hodges, Linda C. " Contemporary Issues in Group Learning in Undergraduate Science Classrooms: A Perspective from Student Engagement ,"  CBE—Life Sciences Education  17.2 (2018): es3.

• Designing Your Course
• A Teaching Timeline: From Pre-Term Planning to the Final Exam
• The First Day of Class
• Group Agreements
• Classroom Debate
• Flipped Classrooms
• Leading Discussions
• Polling & Clickers
• Problem Solving in STEM
• Teaching with Cases
• Engaged Scholarship
• Devices in the Classroom
• Beyond the Classroom
• On Professionalism
• Getting Feedback
• Equitable & Inclusive Teaching
• Advising and Mentoring
• Teaching and Your Career
• Teaching Remotely
• Tools and Platforms
• The Science of Learning
• Bok Publications
• Other Resources Around Campus

Ideas for Great Group Work

Many students, particularly if they are new to college, don’t like group assignments and projects. They might say they “work better by themselves” and be wary of irresponsible members of their group dragging down their grade. Or they may feel group projects take too much time and slow down the progression of the class. This blog post by a student— 5 Reasons I Hate Group Projects —might sound familiar to many faculty assigning in-class group work and longer-term projects in their courses.

We all recognize that learning how to work effectively in groups is an essential skill that will be used by students in practically every career in the private sector or academia. But, with the hesitancy of students towards group work and how it might impact their grade, how do we make group in-class work, assignments, or long-term projects beneficial and even exciting to students?

The methods and ideas in this post have been compiled from Duke faculty who we have consulted with as part of our work in Learning Innovation or have participated in one of our programs. Also included are ideas from colleagues at other universities with whom we have talked at conferences and other venues about group work practices in their own classrooms.

Have clear goals and purpose

Students want to know why they are being assigned certain kinds of work – how it fits into the larger goals of the class and the overall assessment of their performance in the course. Make sure you explain your goals for assigning in-class group work or projects in the course. You may wish to share:

• Information on the importance of developing skills in group work and how this benefits the students in the topics presented in the course.
• Examples of how this type of group work will be used in the discipline outside of the classroom.
• How the assignment or project benefits from multiple perspectives or dividing the work among more than one person.

Some faculty give students the option to come to a consensus on the specifics of how group work will count in the course, within certain parameters. This can help students feel they have some control over their own learning process and and can put less emphasis on grades and more on the importance of learning the skills of working in groups.

Choose the right assignment

Some in-class activities, short assignments or projects are not suitable for working in groups. To ensure student success, choose the right class activity or assignment for groups.

• Would the workload of the project or activity require more than one person to finish it properly?
• Is this something where multiple perspectives create a greater whole?
• Does this draw on knowledge and skills that are spread out among the students?
• Will the group process used in the activity or project give students a tangible benefit to learning in and engagement with the course?

Help students learn the skills of working in groups

Students in your course may have never been asked to work in groups before. If they have worked in groups in previous courses, they may have had bad experiences that color their reaction to group work in your course. They may have never had the resources and support to make group assignments and projects a compelling experience.

One of the most important things you can do as an instructor is to consider all of the skills that go into working in groups and to design your activities and assignments with an eye towards developing those skills.

In a group assignment, students may be asked to break down a project into steps, plan strategy, organize their time, and coordinate efforts in the context of a group of people they may have never met before.

Consider these ideas to help your students learn group work skills in your course.

• Give a short survey to your class about their previous work in groups to gauge areas where they might need help: ask about what they liked best and least about group work, dynamics of groups they have worked in, time management, communication skills or other areas important in the assignment you are designing.
• Allow time in class for students in groups to get to know each other. This can be a simple as brief introductions, an in-class active learning activity or the drafting of a team charter.
• Based on the activity you are designing and the skills that would be involved in working as a group, assemble some links to web resources that students can draw on for more information, such as sites that explain how to delegate and share responsibilities, conflict resolution, or planning a project and time management. You can also address these issues in class with the students.
• Have a plan for clarifying questions or possible problems that may emerge with an assignment or project.   Are there ways you can ask questions or get draft material to spot areas where students are having difficulty understanding the assignment or having difficulty with group dynamics that might impact the work later?

Designing the assignment or project

The actual design of the class activity or project can help the students transition into group work processes and gain confidence with the skills involved in group dynamics.   When designing your assignment, consider these ideas.

• Break the assignment down into steps or stages to help students become familiar with the process of planning the project as a group.
• Suggest roles for participants in each group to encourage building expertise and expertise and to illustrate ways to divide responsibility for the work.
• Use interim drafts for longer projects to help students manage their time and goals and spot early problems with group projects.
• Limit their resources (such as giving them material to work with or certain subsets of information) to encourage more close cooperation.
• Encourage diversity in groups to spread experience and skill levels and to get students to work with colleagues in the course who they may not know.

Promote individual responsibility

Students always worry about how the performance of other students in a group project might impact their grade. A way to allay those fears is to build individual responsibility into both the course grade and the logistics of group work.

• Build “slack days” into the course. Allow a prearranged number of days when individuals can step away from group work to focus on other classes or campus events. Individual students claim “slack days” in advance, informing both the members of their group and the instructor. Encourage students to work out how the group members will deal with conflicting dates if more than one student in a group wants to claim the same dates.
• Combine a group grade with an individual grade for independent write-ups, journal entries, and reflections.
• Have students assess their fellow group members. Teammates is an online application that can automate this process.
• If you are having students assume roles in group class activities and projects, have them change roles in different parts of the class or project so that one student isn’t “stuck” doing one task for the group.

Gather feedback

To improve your group class activities and assignments, gather reflective feedback from students on what is and isn’t working. You can also share good feedback with future classes to help them understand the value of the activities they’re working on in groups.

• For in-class activities, have students jot down thoughts at the end of class on a notecard for you to review.
• At the end of a larger project, or at key points when you have them submit drafts, ask the students for an “assignment wrapper”—a short reflection on the assignment or short answers to a series of questions.

Further resources

Information for faculty

Best practices for designing group projects (Eberly Center, Carnegie Mellon)

Building Teamwork Process Skills in Students (Shannon Ciston, UC Berkeley)

Working with Student Teams   (Bart Pursel, Penn State)

Barkley, E.F., Cross, K.P., and Major, C.H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Thompson, L.L. (2004). Making the team: A guide for managers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Information for students

10 tips for working effectively in groups (Vancouver Island University Learning Matters)

Teamwork skills: being an effective group member (University of Waterloo Centre for Teaching Excellence)

5 ways to survive a group project in college (HBCU Lifestyle)

Group project tips for online courses (Drexel Online)

Group Writing (Writing Center at UNC-Chapel Hill)

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

A group project is a cooperative learning assignment that requires students to work with peer group members to plan, discuss, and complete a specific project, often over the course of an entire semester. The project can be a research paper, an in-class oral presentation, an out-of-class study project, or research contributed as part of a larger class project involving multiple student groups . The purpose is to prepare students to work collaboratively in order to develop the intellectual and social skills needed to examine research problems from a variety of perspectives, to communicate effectively with their peers, and to evaluate and resolve issues on their own with support from other group members.

Burke, Alison. “Group Work: How to Use Groups Effectively.” The Journal of Effective Teaching 11 (2011): 87-95; Colbeck, Carol L., Susan E. Campbell, and Stefani A. Bjorklund. “Grouping in the Dark: What College Students Learn from Group Projects.” The Journal of Higher Education 71 (January - February, 2000): 60-83; Using Group Projects Effectively. Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and Educational Innovation, Carnegie Mellon University; Williams, Katherine. Group Work Benefits and Examples. Study.com.

Benefits of Group Work

As stressful as it can be, group work can actually be beneficial in the long run because it closely parallels the dynamics of serving on a committee, participating in a task force, or working on a collaborative project found in most professional workplace settings. Whatever form the group assignment takes in your course, the opportunity to work with others, rather than on your own, can provide distinct benefits. These include:

• Increased productivity and performance -- groups that work well together can achieve much more than individuals working on their own. A broader range of skills can be applied to practical activities and the process of sharing and discussing ideas can play a pivotal role in deepening your understanding of the research problem. This process also enhances opportunities for applying strategies of critical inquiry and creative or radical problem-solving to an issue.
• Skills development -- being part of a team will help you develop your interpersonal skills. This can include expressing your ideas clearly, listening carefully to others, participating effectively in group deliberations, and clearly articulating to group members t he results of your research . Group work can also help develop collaborative skills, such as, team-based leadership and effectively motivating others. These skills will be useful throughout your academic career and all are highly sought after by employers.
• Knowing more about yourself -- working with others will help identify your own strengths and weaknesses in a collaborative context. For example, you may be a better leader than listener, or, you might be good at coming up with the 'big idea' but not so good at developing a specific plan of action. Enhanced self-awareness about the challenges you may have in working with others will enhance overall learning experiences. Here again, this sense about yourself will be invaluable when you enter the workforce.

Colbeck, Carol L., Susan E. Campbell, and Stefani A. Bjorklund. “Grouping in the Dark: What College Students Learn from Group Projects.” The Journal of Higher Education 71 (January - February, 2000): 60-83; Collaborative Learning/Learning with Peers. Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Golde, Chris M. Tips for Successful Writing Groups. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Presented November, 1994; Updated November, 1996 at Association for the Study of Higher Education; Howard, Rebecca Moore. "Collaborative Pedagogy." In Composition Pedagogies: A Bibliographic Guide . Gary Tate, Amy Rupiper, and Kurt Schick, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 54-71; Thom, Michael. "Are Group Assignments Effective Pedagogy or a Waste of Time? A Review of the Literature and Implications for Practice." Teaching Public Administration 38 (2020): 257-269;

Stages of Group Work

I.  Getting Started

To ensure that your group gets off to a good start, it may be beneficial to:

• Take time for all members to introduce themselves, including name, background, and stating specific strengths in contributing to the overall goals of the assignment.
• Nominate or vote to have someone act as the group leader or facilitator or scheduler. If the burden might be too great, consider deciding to rotate this responsibility among all group members.
• Exchange current contact information, such as, email addresses, social media information, and cell phone numbers.
• Consider creating an online workspace account to facilitate discussions, editing documents, sharing files, exchanging ideas, and to manage a group calendar. There are many free online platforms available for this type of work such as Google docs.

II.  Discussing Goals and Tasks

After you and the other members of the group agree about how to approach the assignment, take time to make sure everyone understands what it is they will need to achieve. Consider the following:

• What are the goals of the assignment? Develop a shared understanding of the assignment's expected learning outcomes to ensure that everyone knows what their role is supposed to be within the group.
• Note when the assignment is due [or when each part is due] so that everyone is on the same schedule and any potential conflicts with assignment due dates in other classes can be addressed ahead of time by each members of the group.
• Discuss how you are going to specifically meet the requirements of the assignment. For example, if the assignment is to write a sample research grant, what topic are you going to research and what organizations would you solicit funding from?
• If your professor allows considerable flexibility in pursuing the goals of the assignment, it often helps to brainstorm a number of ideas and then assess the merits of each one separately. As a group, reflect upon the following questions: How much do you know about this topic already? Is the topic interesting to everyone? If it is not interesting to some, they may not be motivated to work as hard as they might on a topic they found interesting. Can you do a good job on this topic in the available time? With the available people? With the available resources? How easy or hard would it be to obtain good information on the topic? [ NOTE:   Consult with a librarian before assuming that information may be too difficult to find!].

III.  Planning and Preparation

This is the stage when your group should plan exactly what needs to be done, how it needs to be done, and determine who should do what. Pay attention to the following:

• Work together to break the project up into separate tasks and decide on the tasks or sub-tasks each member is responsible for. Make sure that work is equally distributed among each member of the group.
• Agree on the due-dates for completing each task, keeping in mind that members will need time to review any draft documents and the group must have time at the end to pull everything together.
• Develop mechanisms for keeping in touch, meeting periodically, and the preferred methods for sharing information. Discuss and identify any potential stumbling blocks that may arise that could hinder your work [e.g., mid-terms].

NOTE:   Try to achieve steps 1, 2, and 3 in a group meeting that is scheduled as soon as possible after you have received the assignment and your group has been formed. The sooner these preliminary tasks are agreed upon, the sooner each group member can focus on their particular responsibilities.

IV.  Implementation

While each member carries out their individual tasks, it is important to preserve your group's focus and sense of purpose. Effective communication is vital, particularly when your group activity extends over an extended period of time. Here are some tips to promote good communication:

• Keep in touch with each other frequently, reporting progress regularly. When the group meets for the first time, think about about setting up a regular day and time for people to report on their progress [either in-person or online].
• If someone is having trouble completing his or her area of responsibility, work with that person to figure out how to solve the problem. Be supportive and helpful, but don't offer to do other people's work.
• At the same time, make it clear that the group is depending on everyone to do their part; all group members should agree that it is detrimental to everyone in the group for one person to show up at the last minute without his or her work done.

V.  Finishing Up

Be sure to leave enough time to put all the pieces together before the group project is due and to make sure nothing has been forgotten [e.g., someone forgot to correct a chart or a page is missing]. Synthesizing each group member's work usually requires some negotiation and, collectively, overcoming any existing obstacles towards completion. Technically, this can be done online, but it is better to meet in person to ensure that everyone is actively involved in the process.

If your group has to give a presentation about the results of their research, go through the same process--decide who is going to do what and give everyone enough time to prepare and practice ahead of time [preferably together]. At this point before the assignment is due, it is vital to ensure that you pay particular attention to detail, tie up any loose ends, and review the research project together as a team rather than just looking over individual contributions.

VI.  Writing Up Your Project

Writing the group report can be challenging; it is critical that you leave enough time for this final stage. If your group decided to divide responsibility for drafting sections, you will need to nominate a member of the group [if not done so already] to bring everything together so that the narrative flows well and isn't disjointed. Make it their assignment rather than assigning that person to also write a section of the report. It is best to choose whomever in your group is the best writer because careful copy editing at this stage is essential to ensure that the final document is well organized and logically structured.

Focus on the following:

• Have all the writers in your group use the same writing style [e.g., verb tense, diction or word choice, tone, voice, etc.]?
• Are there smooth transitions between individual sections?
• Are the citations to sources, abbreviations, and non-textual elements [charts, graphs, tables, etc.] consistent?

Barkley, Elizabeth F., Claire Howell Major, and K. Patricia Cross. Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty . 2nd edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2014; Boud, David, Ruth Cohen, and Jane Sampson, editors. Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from and with Each Other . Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2001; Collaborative Learning/Learning with Peers. Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College; Espey, Molly. "Enhancing Critical Thinking using Team-Based Learning." Higher Education Research and Development 37 (2018): 15-29; Howard, Rebecca Moore. "Collaborative Pedagogy." In Composition Pedagogies: A Bibliographic Guide . Gary Tate, Amy Rupiper, and Kurt Schick, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). 54-71; INDOT Group Work and Report Planning Handout. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Working in Groups. Academic Skills Centre. University of Canberra; Working in Groups. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Group Writing. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Golde, Chris M. Tips for Successful Writing Groups. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Presented November, 1994; Updated November, 1996 at Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Meeting Places

Where Your Group Meets Matters!

Choosing where to you meet can have as much of an impact on your group's overall success as how well you communicate and work together. When your group is first formed, be sure to set aside some time to discuss and come to an agreement about where to meet in the future. Obviously, convenience has a lot to do with your possible choices. However, discussions of where to meet should also focus on identifying a space that's comfortable, easily accessible to everyone, and does not have any distractions, such as, the smell of food from nearby, heavy foot traffic, or constant noise,

Places that meet all of these conditions are the collaborative workrooms in the East Asian Library of Doheny or the group study spaces in the Lower Computer Commons of Leavey Library or on the second floor of Leavey Library. These rooms can seat anywhere from 4 to 10 people and all have dry erase boards and power and network connectivity. Most rooms also have large monitors with laptop connections that your group can use to display a presentation, document, spreadsheet, or other information that is the focus of your collaborative work. Note that these rooms are very popular, especially towards the end of the semester, so schedule early and be courteous in promptly cancelling your reservation so others may use the room. Finally, if everyone agrees that meeting in person is not crucial, a meeting to discuss the group's activities can be conducted over Zoom or other video conferencing platform.

Bilandzic, Mark and Marcus Foth. "Libraries as Coworking Spaces: Understanding User Motivations and Perceived Barriers to Social Learning," Library Hi Tech 31 (2013): 254-273.

• << Previous: Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Next: Types of Structured Group Activities >>
• Last Updated: Mar 6, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Eberly Center

Teaching excellence & educational innovation, what are the challenges of group work and how can i address them.

Unfortunately, groups can easily end up being less, rather than more, than the sum of their parts. Why is this?

In this section, we consider the hazards of group projects and strategies instructors can use to avoid or mitigate them. Find other strategies and examples here or contact the Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence for help.

For students, common challenges of group work include:

• Coordination costs
• Motivation costs
• Intellectual costs

For instructors, common challenges involve:

• Allocating time
• Teaching process skills
• Assessing process as well as product
• Assessing individual as well as group learning

Challenges for students

Coordination costs represent time and energy that group work consumes that individual work does not, including the time it takes to coordinate schedules, arrange meetings, meet, correspond, make decisions collectively, integrate the contributions of group members, etc. The time spent on each of these tasks may not be great, but together they are significant.

Coordination costs can’t be eliminated, nor should they be: after all, coordinating the efforts of multiple team members is an important skill. However, if coordination costs are excessive or are not factored into the structure of group assignments, groups tend to miss deadlines, their work is poorly integrated, motivation suffers, and creativity declines.

Instructors should note that coordination costs increase with:

• Group size: The more people in the group, the more schedules to accommodate, parts to delegate, opinions to consider, pieces to integrate, etc. Smaller groups have lower coordination costs.
• Task interdependence: Tasks in which group members are highly reliant on one another at all stages tend to have higher coordination costs than tasks that allow students to “divide and conquer”, though they may not satisfy the same collaborative goals.
• Heterogeneity: Heterogeneity of group members tends to raises coordination costs, especially if there are language issues to contend with, cultural differences to bridge, and disparate skills to integrate. However, since diversity of perspectives is one of the principle advantages of groups, this should not necessarily be avoided.

Strategies: To help reduce or mitigate coordination costs:

• Keep groups small.
• Designate some class time for group meetings.
• Use group resumes or skills inventories to help teams delegate subtasks.
• Assign roles (e.g., group leader, scheduler) or encourage students to do so.
• Point students to digital tools that facilitate remote and/or asynchronous meetings.
• Warn students about time-consuming stages and tasks.
• Actively build communication and conflict resolution skills.
• Designate time in the project schedule for the group to integrate parts.

Motivation costs refers to the adverse effect on student motivation of working in groups, which often involves one or more of these phenomena:

• Free riding occurs when one or more group members leave most or all of the work to a few, more diligent, members. Free riding – if not addressed proactively – tends to erode the long-term motivation of hard-working students.
• Social loafing describes the tendency of group members to exert less effort than they can or should because of the reduced sense of accountability (think of how many people don’t bother to vote, figuring that someone else will do it.) Social loafing lowers group productivity.
• Conflict within groups can erode morale and cause members to withdraw. It can be subtle or pronounced, and can (but isn’t always) the cause and result of free riding. Conflict – if not effectively addressed – can leave group members with a deeply jaundiced view of teams.

Strategies: To address both preexisting and potential motivation problems:

• Explain why working in groups is worth the frustration.
• Establish clear expectations for group members, by setting ground rules and/or using team contracts.
• Increase individual accountability by combining group assessments with individual assessments. 
• Teach conflict-resolution skills and reinforce them by role-playing responses to hypothetical team conflict scenarios. 
• Assess group processes via periodic process reports, self-evaluations, and peer evaluations.

Intellectual costs refer to characteristics of group behavior that can reduce creativity and productivity. These include:

• Groupthink : the tendency of groups to conform to a perceived majority view. 
• Escalation of commitment : the tendency of groups to become more committed to their plans and strategies – even ineffective ones – over time. 
• Transparency illusion : the tendency of group members to believe their thoughts, attitudes and reasons are more obvious to others than is actually the case.
• Common information effect : the tendency of groups to focus on information all members share and ignore unique information, however relevant.

Strategies: To reduce intellectual costs and increase the creativity and productivity of groups:

• Precede group brainstorming with a period of individual brainstorming (sometimes called “nominal group technique”). This forestalls groupthink and helps the group generate and consider more different ideas.
• Encourage group members to reflect on and highlight their contributions in periodic self-evaluations. 
• Create structured opportunities at the halfway point of projects to allow students to reevaluate and revise their strategies and approaches.
• Assign roles to group members that reduce conformity and push the group intellectually (devil’s advocate, doubter, the Fool).

Challenges for instructors

While group assignments have benefits for instructors , they also have complexities that instructors should consider carefully, for example in these areas:

Allocating time: While group assignments may save instructors time in some areas (e.g., grading final projects), they may add time in other areas (e.g., time needed up front to identify appropriate project topics, contact external clients, compose student groups; time during the semester to meet with and monitor student groups; time at the end of the semester to ascertain the contributions of individual team members.)

Teaching process skills: Functioning effectively in teams requires students to develop strong communication, coordination, and conflict resolution skills, which not all instructors feel qualified to teach. Many instructors are also reluctant to devote class time to reinforcing these skills and may be uncomfortable dealing with the interpersonal issues that can arise in groups. In other words, dealing proactively with team dynamics may push some instructors out of their comfort zone.

Assessing process as well as product: Assessing teamwork skills and group dynamics (i.e., process) can be far trickier than assessing a team’s work (i.e., product). Effective evaluation of process requires thoughtful consideration of learning objectives and a combination of assessment approaches. This creates layers of complexity that instructors may not anticipate.

Assessing individual as well as group learning: Group grades can hide significant differences in learning, yet teasing out which team members did and did not contribute to the group or learn the lessons of the assignment can be difficult. Once again, this adds complexity to group projects that instructors often underestimate. 

Find effective strategies to help faculty address these issues in the design of effective group projects .

How Do I Facilitate Effective Group Work?

Successful group work is characterized by trust, psychological safety, clarity of expectations, and good communication; being in the same location while working is not essential to group effectiveness (Duhigg, 2016; Kelly, 2008; Salmons, 2019). Below we offer strategies and examples that work for short-term collaborative group work (e.g., discussions in an online, hybrid/flexible, or in-person class) and long-term collaborative assignments (e.g., group projects), ending with additional considerations for long-term collaborative work.

STRATEGIES & EXAMPLES

Provide opportunities to develop connection and trust.

Engage students with community building activities.  Groups work best when students feel connected and trust each other. Brief  icebreaker activities  are fun and allow students to get to know each other before delving into group work. If using a video conferencing platform such as Zoom or Echo360, ask students to type a word or emoji about how they are doing into the chat, or during in-person classes students can share this orally or via an audience response system. Let students practice group work in  Moodle  or  Blackboard  with some low-stakes group assignments.

Create group norms.  In the first few weeks of class, create participation norms that all students agree upon as a class or within their small groups. Discuss with students how certain social identities (e.g., women in STEM, transgender students) can be unintentionally marginalized during group work as a justification for creating norms around respectful and inclusive communication (Oakley, Felder, Brent, & Elhajj, 2004). Vary the groupings of students so that students can meet other students and hear different perspectives, particularly in the first weeks of class. Refer back to the agreed-upon norms when conflict arises.

Proactively check in with groups.  It’s important to pay attention to both process and the accomplished task. As you drop into groups during class time or consult with groups in office hours, note who does and does not speak; consider asking questions about process such as who is generating ideas and how they know everyone is on board with these ideas. Check in individually with quieter students. Remember, how you address group functioning models how they should interact with each other (Kelly, 2008).

(Over)communicate and Reinforce Expectations

Communicate the purpose.  Communicate in writing and orally the skills students will develop by the end of their group work experience and why this is a valuable task or project to do in groups (as opposed to individually). You might ask students to connect skills they will learn to their personal goals and describe how they will know if they’ve developed these skills apart from your feedback.

Describe the tasks.  In writing, describe the tasks in detail, including steps in the process with due dates/deadlines, resources needed, technology for communication, and expectations for group work. This means giving students clear topics, questions, deliverables, or goals for group work. Consider assigning rotating task roles such as discussion director, connector, summarizer, recorder, and reporter (Kennedy & Nilson, 2008). Create a space online for students to submit questions which are publicly answered for all to see; this can become an  FAQ forum . At the end of group work, have groups submit something that demonstrates their engagement with the task for a small amount of points, such as group decisions, remaining questions, or discussion notes.

Clarify the criteria.  Communicate specific details about how student work generated in groups will be assessed (i.e., rubrics, exemplars, grading scheme). Use positive, “do this” language rather than negative, “don’t do this” language when possible. Show examples that typify important or challenging aspects of the work with narrations (i.e., on video or in a commented document) of what makes the work exemplar.

Additional Tips for Long-term Collaborative Projects

Be sure students have a communication plan.  This can be specified as part of their group norms and processes at the beginning of the project. In addition, be clear how and when groups should communicate with you, where and in what format they should submit materials, and what to do if they encounter a problem.

Break apart the project into phases or milestones with clear deliverables at each stage.  Clearly specify how and where students should turn in work (i.e., online or in person), and use this format consistently for all deliverables.

Have students periodically check in about their group process and report back on their process.  At the beginning of the project, ask students to identify how they want to work together, what their expectations are for each other, and what collaborative tools the group wants to use. Have them post their group norms in an online forum. Include a requirement for a  "team effectiveness discussion"  or evaluation (self or peer) after students have some time to work together (e.g., 2nd milestone; See  Oakley et al. 2004  for a “Crisis Clinic” guide). Allow them to adjust norms and set goals for the next phase of group work.

Clearly connect homework, lectures, or other learning activities to the group project.  For example, after learning new concepts, students might be asked to turn in a brief “Application memo” which connects course content to their group project. An online session might end with an “Integrate it” discussion among group members to integrate new learning into their project. Homework might be called “Project Prep.” Name activities by their purpose so that students see the relevance and utility of each activity more easily.

Foster cross-group peer review.  Students will appreciate hearing what other groups are doing and can get ideas for their own projects. For example, have students share their milestones or group work with another group and have them record questions and feedback in a collaborative document. Review that document to provide feedback to the entire class, saving you from giving feedback to each group. Peer review can also be done as a workshop or group assignment activity in the LMS. 

Please contact the CTL with any questions or for more details about the examples shared at  [email protected] . For support with collaborative technology, email  [email protected] .

For questions on your LMS, Google, and other educational technology contact IDEAS at [email protected]

Duhigg, C. (2016, February 25).  What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team . The New York Times.

Kelly, R. (2008, August 11).  Creating trust in online education ,  Faculty Focus.

Kennedy, F. A., and Nilson, L. B. (2008).  Successful strategies for teams. Team Member Handbook .  Office of Teaching Effectiveness and Innovation, Clemson University.

Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004).  Turning student groups into effective teams .  Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2 (1), pp. 9-34.

Salmons, J. (2019).  Learning to collaborate, collaborating to learn: Engaging students in the classroom and online . Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Image by Armin Rimoldi for Pexels.

RELATED TOPICS

How Do I Increase Student Engagement with Participation Agreements?

Students engage and participate when there is a class climate in which they feel safe, supported, and encouraged to express their thoughts, values, experiences, and perspectives.

How Do I Use Note Catchers to Support Group Work and Collaborative Note Taking?

Note catchers, shared collaborative documents accessed in real time, keep students focused and help you monitor online or in-person group work.

How Do I Navigate Hot Moments in the Classroom?

Strategies for navigating and managing yourself during hot moments during class discussions, and helping students process conflict.

How Do I Support Students with Compassion and Empathy?

Faculty can support student learning by designing courses to include compassion, communicating often, and connecting students to wellbeing resources on campus.

• Consultations
• MAP Program
• Departmental Administration of Forward FOCUS
• Forward FOCUS Frequently Asked Questions
• Implementing and Modifying Forward FOCUS
• Identifying and Responding to Pinch Points
• Using Forward FOCUS to Design Forward
• Alternative Grading
• Listen to Learn
• ChatGPT and Generative AI Discussion Group: Navigating the Future of Teaching and Learning
• Lilly Fellows Stories
• Lilly Fellowship Current Fellows
• Lilly Fellowship Past Fellows
• TIDE Ambassadors Fellowship Cohorts
• Contemplative Pedagogy Past Programming
• Contemplative Pedagogy Resources
• UMass Courses Taught with Contemplative Pedagogy
• SoTL Professional Development Award
• SoTL Working Group
• SoTL Conference Calendar
• SoTL Sprint
• How Do I...?
• Inclusive Syllabus Design
• Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
• Faculty Successes
• Building Belonging
• Talk Teaching
• Equity Action Plan Instructional Resources
• Gather to Grade
• Teaching Showcase
• Teaching with AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning
• 2021-2022 Highlights
• 2022-2023 Highlights
• Periodic Multi-Year Review (PMYR) Grant
• Previous DTA Winners
• DTA Frequently Asked Questions
• Tips for Writing a Teaching Statement
• Previous COTA Winners
• Step-by-Step Guide on How to Submit Materials for the Manning Prize 2023
• Collaborative Grants
• CTLs in Context

Center for Teaching Innovation

Ideas for group & collaborative assignments, why collaborative learning.

Collaborative learning can help

• students develop higher-level thinking, communication, self-management, and leadership skills
• explore a broad range of perspectives and provide opportunities for student voices/expression
• promote teamwork skills & ethics
• prepare students for real life social and employment situations
• increase student retention, self-esteem, and responsibility

Collaborative activities & tools

Group brainstorming & investigation in shared documents.

Have students work together to investigate or brainstorm a question in a shared document (e.g., structured Google doc, Google slide, or sheet) or an online whiteboard, and report their findings back to the class.

• Immediate view of contributions
• Synchronous & asynchronous group work
• Students can come back to the shared document to revise, re-use, or add information
• Google workspace (Google Docs, Sheets, Forms, & Slides)
• Microsoft 365 (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Teams)
• Cornell Box (document storage)
• Whiteboarding tools ( Zoom , JamBoard , Miro , Mural , etc.)

Considerations

• Sharing settings
• Global access
• Accessibility

Group discussions with video conferencing and chat

Ask students to post an answer to a question or share their thoughts about class content in the Zoom chat window (best for smaller classes). For large classes, ask students in Zoom breakout rooms to choose a group notetaker to post group discussion notes in the chat window after returning to the main class session.

You can also use a discussion board for asynchronous group work.

• Students can post their reflections in real time and read/share responses
• If group work is organized asynchronously, students can come back to the discussion board at their own time

Synchronous group work:

• Zoom Breakout rooms
• Microsoft Teams
• Canvas Conferences
• Canvas Group Discussions
• Ed Discussion
• Stable access to WiFi and its bandwidth
• Clear expectations about participation and pace for asynchronous discussion boards
• Monitoring discussion boards

Group projects: creation

Students retrieve and synthesize information by collaborating with their peers to create something new: a written piece, an infographic, a piece of code, or students collectively respond to sample test questions.

• Group projects may benefit from features offered by shared online space (ability to chat, do video conferencing, share files and links, post announcements and discussion threads, and build content)
• Canvas groups with all available tools

Setting up groups and group projects for success may require the following steps:

• Introduce group or peer work early in the semester
• Establishing ground rules for participation
• Plan for each step of group work
• Explain how groups will function and the grading

Peer learning, critiquing, giving feedback

Students submit their first draft of an essay, research proposal, or a design, and the submitted work is distributed for peer review. If students work on a project in teams, they can check in with each other through a group member evaluation activity. Students can also build on each other’s knowledge and understanding of the topic in Zoom breakout room discussions or by sharing and responding in an online discussion board.

When providing feedback and critiquing, students have to apply their knowledge, problem-solving skills, and develop feedback literacy. Students also engage more deeply with the assignment requirements and/or the rubric.

• FeedbackFruits Peer Review and Group Member Evaluation
• Canvas Peer Review
• Turnitin PeerMark
• Zoom breakout rooms
• Canvas discussions, and other discussion tools
• Peer review is a multistep activity and may require careful design and consideration of requirements to help students achieve the learning outcomes. The assignment requirements will inform which platform is best to use and the best settings for the assignment
• We advise making the first peer review activity a low-stakes assignment for the students to get used to the platform and the flow.
• A carefully written rubric helps guide students through the process of giving feedback and yields more constructive feedback.
• It helps when the timing for the activity is generous, so students have enough time to first submit their work and then give feedback.

Group reflection & social annotation activities

Students can annotate, highlight, discuss, and collaborate on text documents, images, video, audio, and websites. Instructors can post guiding questions for students to respond to, and allow students to post their own questions to be answered by peers. This is a great reading activity leading up to an inperson discussion.

• Posing discussion topics and/or questions for students to answer as they read a paper
• Students can collaboratively read and annotate synchronously and asynchronously
• Collaborative annotation helps students to acknowledge some parts of reading that they could have neglected otherwise
• Annotating in small groups
• FeedbackFruits
• Interactive Media (annotations on document, video, and audio)
• Providing students with thorough instructions
• These are all third-party tools, so the settings should be selected thoughtfully
• Accessibility (Perusall)

Group learning with polling and team competitions

Instructors can poll students while they are in breakout rooms using Poll Everywhere. This activity is great for checking understanding and peer learning activities, as students will be able to discuss solutions.

• Students can share screen in a breakout room and/or answer questions together
• This activity can be facilitated as a competition among teams
• Poll Everywhere competitions, surveys, and polls facilitated in breakout rooms
• Careful construction of questions for students
• Students may need to be taught how to answer online questions
• It requires appropriate internet connection and can experience delays in response summaries.

More information

• Group work & collaborative learning
• Collaboration tools
• Active learning
• Active learning in online teaching

LX / Design a group assignment

Design a group assignment

This resource offers suggestions for designing group assignments which students will finding motivating. We’ll explore how to make the assignment meaningful, easily allocated into sub-tasks, relevant to learning outcomes and achievable.

One of the most crucial aspects of group work is the task set for the group. If students engage in their task, they will be more likely to be motivated to be an active participant in group work and develop new skills. Unfortunately, many students find their tasks to be inappropriate or too difficult for group work and thus lack motivation to work collectively on the assignment. In fact, many students view their assignments as little more than an individual assessment task applied to a group of students to reduce marking.

Develop a motivating group assignment

To develop a motivating group assignment, first you need to understand what students look for in a collaborative assessment task. Understanding students’ expectations is important because it allows you to see where your task can be aligned with their expectations. It also allows you to identify where alignment may not be possible. These differences can then be discussed with the students so they understand your reasons. Students will always work better when they understand why they are being assessed in a particular way.

There are four important factors which students look for in a group assignment.

1. A meaningful assignment

Students are not only motivated by the mark they will receive for their assignment. They are also motivated by the work they will produce.

Students often report that their most motivating group assignments are those which are “client-based”. These are assignments where the groups enact the role of consultant and work on an issue which has been identified by the client (in most instances, an organisation). Groups usually produce some form of written report (or in some disciplines a product) which is assessed by the lecturer. Occasionally, the client is also invited to assess the group’s output. Students are particularly motivated when they know that the client will be viewing and assessing the work.

Designing “client-based” group assignments are becoming increasingly popular in university settings. Many organisations are interested in participating in such projects because of the insights and perspectives generated by the project groups. Non-profit organisations, with their limited resources, are often keen to become clients and students are particularly motivated to help such organisations.

Some lecturers are even beginning to view the university as a client and are designing group assignments which address particular concerns faced by students and staff.

2. Easily allocated into sub-tasks

Student groups almost always divide up their task and allocate different sections to each member. Even if you do not want the assignment to be broken up, they probably will (or at least attempt to do so).

Students argue that this is the only strategy to use when they are members of 3 or 4 other groups. Unfortunately, most groups struggle when they attempt to divide up the task because it has not been designed to be broken up. It has been designed to be completed collectively. The rationale behind this strategy is that students learn group skills by closely working together on every aspect of the task.

While this strategy can be effective, it usually takes much longer than one semester for it to work. Furthermore, it usually requires that members work together full-time on the one task. With students working part-time, on more than one task, in more than one group, it is in many ways an unrealistic strategy. There is just not enough time for students to work together on every issue.

Knowing that students divide up their group task, many lecturers are beginning to devise group assignments with this in mind. In these assignments, each group member is required to do a piece of work. These individual pieces are then combined together to form a completed group product (there is usually an introduction and conclusion which the group write together to bring the individual sections together).

Students are motivated by these types of assignments because:

• they are less dependent on each other
• they don’t have to make joint decisions on each and every issue,
• there are fewer disagreements
• they have the opportunity to ‘shine’ as well as contribute to the group

Lecturers also benefit greatly from the task design due to:

• fewer complaints about free-riding (because each member’s work is identifiable)
• greater enthusiasm for group work
• less conflict in groups
• greater peer support

As with any innovation, there are of course critics to the approach. The main criticism is that students are not working in ‘fully fledged’ groups and, as such, fail to develop a broad range of skills. While this may be true, proponents argue that it is far better to learn some skills well than many at only a shallow level. This approach works on the rationale that students should not be expected to learn too many skills in a semester, but rather focus on a number of key skills (eg. coordination, peer support, accountability).

Proponents also argue that the notion of the fully fledged group rarely exists in industry and that their approach more accurately mirrors the “real world”. In many organisations, team members often work independently on individual pieces and bring them together to form the product (or the collection of group products). The aim of their approach is to reflect this style of team work and to teach students how to operate under such a system.

It is understandable that many group assignments must be collaborative and result in a single product. For these assignments, it is important to remember that students will try to split the task up. If the task can be logically divided, it may be advisable to help them do so – this will save the group valuable time. If the task cannot be broken apart, this should be clearly explained to students before they try to do so.

3. Relevant to learning outcomes

As mentioned earlier, many students are sceptical about collaborative assessment tasks and often view them merely as a way of reducing marking. For students to be motivated to participate in group assignments, they often need to see the tangible benefits of doing so. This is best achieved by designing group assignments which are closely aligned to the learning objectives of the subject.

When designing collaborative assignments, it is important to consider what knowledge, skills and abilities you want your students to learn through group work. While there will be a generic set applicable to most group assignments (eg. learning to communicate and cooperate with peers), there will also be a specific set which need to be geared to the assignment. For example, what type of interpersonal communication skills do you want your students to learn? Do you want them to learn to communicate face-to-face or also to learn computer mediated communication? If the latter is important, then establishing an “on-line” group task (eg. an on-line debate or discussion group) would be appropriate.

All too often, lectures design group assignments with little reference to the learning objectives and this can create confusion for students. For example, students often fail to see how requirements such as communicating “on-line” or making a group presentation are relevant to their learning outcomes. Whilst the objective may be clear to the lecturer, students often have little idea. It is therefore important that the objectives of the group assignment are  explicitly  made known to students. This is best achieved through a well structured subject outline that breaks down the group assignment into its sub-components and links each component to a key learning objective.

4. An achievable assignment

When designing an appropriate group assignment, it is also important to set a task which can realistically be achieved by students within the specified time frame. Whilst the task may be meaningful and challenging, it can become too time consuming and overwhelming for students. This is particularly the case when students are doing equally challenging group assignments in their other subjects. Students often complain that many of their difficulties arise from the multiple group assignments they are forced to do each semester and how many lecturers are either insensitive or oblivious to this fact. T

he unfortunate result is that students become disillusioned with their group assignments and tend to apply themselves less. This usually results in a decrease in learning, motivation and output quality and an increase in group related problems such as conflict and the withdrawal of effort. To help design a realistically achievable task, it may therefore be worth ‘standing back’ and viewing the group assignment from the student’s perspective.

Things to consider

• Invite the client to a class or classes throughout the semester
• Restrict students from contacting the clients whenever they choose
• Provide samples of work completed by groups in previous years.
• Discuss how groups, particularly those who have done well in previous years, have gone about completing their assignment
• If you are having difficulties finding a real client, design your group assignment around a mock client (eg. a hypothetical client or a client from a previous year)

Still need help?

Get in touch with the LX.lab team by logging a ticket via ServiceConnect. We'll be in touch shortly.

Want to provide feedback on this resource? Please log in first via the top nav menu.

Grades submission process | 19 June

• Wednesday, 19 June, 2024 11:00 am-12:00 pm

Design, implement and assess video-based tasks | 23 May

• Thursday, 23 May, 2024 11:00 am-12:00 pm

• Skip to main content
• Skip to search
• Skip to footer

Center for Engaged Learning

Are group assignments a waste of time.

by David Buck

August 6, 2020

Are group assignments effective pedagogy or a waste of time? This is the question asked by researcher Michael Thom (2020) in his recent paper examining the scholarship on collaborative pedagogy. To be clear, I’m being literal here. The title of his paper is “Are Group Assignments Effective Pedagogy or a Waste of Time? A Review of the Literature and Implications for Practice.” I was excited when I found this paper because I’m a social scientist, and a fundamental element of scientific epistemology is that you should seek out evidence that could disconfirm your hypothesis. That’s part of what distinguishes science from simply cherry-picking anecdotal evidence. The premise that most of us start with is that collaborative projects and group assignments are high impact practices, so early on I started searching for articles that might run counter to that premise. I guessed by the title of Thom’s article that it wasn’t going to be the gushing praise of collaborative learning that I’d come to expect from some of the more prominent names in the field.

Thom starts by discussing something that you probably already know if you’ve ever had students do group projects in your class: Students don’t really seem to like them very much or see the educational value in them (Bacon 2005). For example, in one study of students sampled across multiple years of a cross-disciplinary course, students reported that they perceived the collaborative assignments in the class as having less value than both individual active learning assignments and traditional lecture (Machemer and Crawford 2007). It’s easy to understand why students may not be thrilled about group assignments: the potential logistical frustrations associated with scheduling and differing locations, the risk of freeloaders not contributing or being unreliable, the concern among high achievers that their performance may be impeded by low-achieving group members, and the risk of different group members’ personalities clashing and creating conflict. Compared to group work, individual work is safe.

Students not enjoying collaborative work is unfortunate because it could lead to demotivation and disengagement. But if it leads to actual increases in learning, then maybe we could at least argue that although it may be a bitter pill, it gets the job done. However, Thom goes on to discuss how the research on actual learning from group assignments is a lot weaker than we may like to acknowledge. A lot of research is based on nonexperimental self-reports of learning (for example, anything coming from NSSE [ National Survey of Student Engagement ] data). Nonexperimental research makes it hard for us to make robust causal claims, and self-reported data may not be the best source of evidence for learning because we tend not to be very good at judging how much we’ve learned. If you ask people to reflect on an activity that required a lot of time or effort (and that they didn’t enjoy), they may exaggerate their reports of how much they learned as a form of dissonance reduction. Thom’s critique of the research is not intended to be comprehensive, but it is compelling enough to make one reexamine assumptions and want to look back with a more skeptical eye.

And I think that’s really the purpose of Thom’s paper. He doesn’t answer the question posed in the title with a definitive “they’re a waste of time” or “they’re effective pedagogy.” Instead, he encourages the reader to think twice about cavalierly including them in a course, and he closes with five points of consideration for instructors who still want to use them:

• Don’t use them in every class.  It’s easy to think of our classes as isolated worlds, but students may be enrolled in four or five of those worlds at a time. When students have different group projects in all of their classes, the frustrations around the logistics of collaboration become even more of a problem. Consider whether an assignment that requires significant outside-of-class group work is appropriate (and adds significant value) to your course and try to coordinate within programs to avoid students experiencing “group fatigue” (Gillespie, Rosamond, and Thomas 2006).
• Teach about how to be in a group.  Don’t assume that students know how to work effectively in groups, how to communicate, or how to manage conflict. Make these explicit learning goals and take the time to teach these skills before the collaboration starts. This of course requires instructors to invest time and possibly cut other content (this is another reason why point 1 shouldn’t be ignored). If you aren’t willing or able to invest the time, maybe don’t utilize group work.
• Shorter is better.  This may be surprising because it runs counter to one of the features of high impact practices articulated by Kuh, O’Donnell, and Schneider (2017) —that a HIP should involve a substantial investment of time. I think I’ll try to look into this more later, but the research that Thom presents suggests that longer term assignments are less effective. Possibly this is because they create more opportunity for obstacles, conflicts, and disengagement.
• Keep groups small and let students pick them.  Logically, smaller groups have an easier time coordinating and have less likelihood of free riding, but Thom’s argument that students should self-select groups I think requires a little more scrutiny. He does present research suggesting that self-selected groups perform better than teacher-selected groups and have less conflict, but these groups are more likely to be homogenous, and self-selection doesn’t really mirror how groups are typically formed in the workplace. If your goals include having students interact with people different from themselves and simulating real-world experiences, teacher selection might be preferable. It also means you may need to spend more time on the setup of the assignment because of the greater potential for conflict.
• Include individual accountability.  Whether this accountability is achieved through individual graded work that is submitted to the instructor or through peer evaluations, you want to make sure you create a scenario in which students feel like their individual performance is being evaluated. Moreover, this shouldn’t all come at the end. If a student turns in a weak individual assignment or gets a bad peer evaluation near the end of the group work, the group still suffered, and all you are doing is adding a penalty to an individual. Think of this individual accountability as formative rather than summative. Use it at multiple points in the process to catch minor problems before they have time to become bigger issues and to teach students how to collaborate more effectively while the collaboration is ongoing, rather than just to punish poor collaboration after the fact.
• Bacon, Donald R. 2005. “The Effects of Group Projects on Content-Related Learning.”  Journal of Management Education  29 (2): 248–267.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562904263729 .
• Gillespie, Diane, Sally Rosamond, and Elizabeth Thomas. 2006. “Grouped Out? Undergraduates’ Default Strategies for Participating in Multiple Small Groups.”  Journal of General Education  55 (2): 81-102.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/27798042 .
• Kuh, George, Ken O’Donnell, and Carol Geary Schneider. 2017. “HIPs at Ten.”  Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning  49 (5): 8-16.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1366805
• Machemer, Patricia L., and Pat Crawford. 2007. “Student Perceptions of Active Learning in a Large Cross-disciplinary Classroom.”  Active Learning in Higher Education  8 (1): 9–30.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787407074008 .
• Thom, Michael. 2020. “Are Group Assignments Effective Pedagogy or a Waste of Time? A Review of the Literature and Implications for Practice.”  Teaching Public Administration.  Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739420904396 .

David Buck, associate professor of psychology, is the 2020-2022 Center for Engaged Learning Scholar. Dr. Buck’s CEL Scholar project focuses on collaborative projects and assignments as a high-impact practice.

How to cite this post:

Buck, David. (2020, August 6). Are Group Assignments a Waste of Time? [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/are-group-assignments-a-waste-of-time

• Collaborative Projects and Assignments
• Studying EL

I’m a Student. Here’s Why Group Work Feels So Unfair

• Share article

On a recent Saturday, I stared at my group’s ongoing assignment for English class, getting lost in thought and wondering if anyone else in my group would work on it over the weekend.

As a high school senior in a big magnet high school of approximately 2,400 students, I have met and worked with a large number of students. Many students are very intelligent and academically motivated, but there are also many students who are rather uninterested in their academic success. When group work is assigned, I often get a sinking feeling of dread from the fear of an uneven distribution of work.

I hoped that I would not, once again, need to do an unfair portion of a group assignment. I talked to a friend about my feelings and was met with resounding agreement about the frequent unfairness of group work. In a fit of passion, I emailed a long appeal to my English teacher.

Here’s what I said—and what I want other teachers to know as well:

In most schools, students will be required to participate in group work at some point. Unfortunately, many academically motivated students dislike it because they anticipate that some group members will not do nearly as much work as others. For this reason, I am proposing that teachers should try to give less group work outside of class and instead contain it within the classroom, possibly in exchange for more individually assigned homework.

An uneven workload can happen for a variety of reasons. For instance, some group members are less capable than others. However, as someone who has worked with people that have more trouble contributing to the group assignment, I am generally satisfied with the distribution of work, as long as everyone expends the same amount of effort. It is also possible for group members to fall sick during a group project, causing them to take a break from work. However, when a classmate contracted COVID during a recent group project, my group mates and I were understanding that they needed to rest.

What is much more vexing is when certain students do not try as hard as others—either because they simply do not care about the grade or because they assume their group members will do their work for them. This often creates a kind of domino effect with otherwise motivated students becoming unwilling to contribute because of the unfairness, thinking, “Why should I work on this if my group mates don’t?”

I’ve felt that way, too, but I still end up working on the assignment, as do the majority of students who care about their grades. When the assignment still ends up getting finished, it can be easy to overlook the unfair inner workings of the group members.

The possibility of unequal workloads in groups can certainly apply to students during class as well as outside of class, but the classroom setting is more likely to motivate students to work. When outside of school, students are more averse to doing schoolwork. It is much easier to procrastinate in an environment outside of a classroom, with thrills of instant gratification close at hand and no authority figure to regulate what they are supposed to be doing.

In addition, some group assignments require students to find time to work together outside of class, which is hard for some students. Because many students have family responsibilities, part-time work, and extracurricular activities, it can be challenging to find a specific time when all group members are free. For instance, I work in my family’s business for about 20 hours a week, attend track practice nearly every day after school, and tutor science and math in the mornings before 8 AM.

Assigning only individual work outside the classroom removes the risk of group members being overly reliant on others.

Assigning only individual work outside the classroom removes the risk of group members being overly reliant on others. The individual gets credit for their effort and output, which is the main factor of how students are graded. In addition, it is easier to manage time and allows the student to work at their own pace.

Removing group work entirely might eliminate the unfairness and challenges associated with it, but group work certainly does have benefits for students. It can help us learn to develop stronger communication skills, share different perspectives, and work together to solve complex problems.

Therefore, without completely removing group work, I urge teachers to consider changing their curriculum to accommodate for more class time to work on group assignments. It’s only fair.

A version of this article appeared in the November 30, 2022 edition of Education Week as I’m a Student. Here’s Why Group Work Feels So Unfair

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.17(3); Fall 2018

When Group Work Doesn’t Work: Insights from Students

Yunjeong chang.

† Department of Instructional Technology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602

Peggy Brickman

§ Department of Plant Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602

Associated Data

Introducing group work in college science classrooms can lead to noticeable gains in student achievement, reasoning ability, and motivation. To realize these gains, students must all contribute. Strategies like assigning roles, group contracts, anonymous peer evaluations, and peer ratings all encourage student participation. In a class using these strategies, we conducted in-depth interviews to uncover student perceptions of group work in general and the utility of these support strategies. Students in both high- and low-performance groups still complained of unequal contributions while praising the social support provided by groups. Students who scored highly on tests were more likely to recognize the benefits of group work, regardless of their groups’ overall performance levels, while lower-scoring students perceived group work as time-consuming “busy work” with little cognitive benefit. Comments from anonymous peer evaluations differed only subtly between high- and low-performance groups. Numerical ratings on these evaluations did correlate with overall group performance. However, students in lower-performance groups assigned harsh ratings to their low-scoring members, while students in higher-performance groups were more generous in their ratings for low-scoring members. We discuss implications of relying on support strategies for promoting productive group work.

INTRODUCTION

Science education policy ( Handelsman et al. , 2004 ; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2010 ; Couch et al. , 2015 ; National Research Council, 2015 ) advocates for including peer interactions (referred to as “group work” hereafter) in college courses because they provide opportunities for students to practice scientific reasoning, critical-thinking, communication, and problem-solving skills that have been shown to result in greater gains in achievement ( Slavin, 1991 ; Springer et al. , 1999 ; Johnson et al. , 2000 ; Armstrong et al. , 2007 ; Preszler, 2009 ; Freeman et al. , 2014 ; Batz et al. , 2015 ). Group-work pedagogies with demonstrated evidence of effectiveness include collaborative learning ( Phelps and Damon, 1989 ), cooperative learning ( Slavin, 1991 ), team-based learning ( Michaelsen et al. , 2014 ), peer instruction ( Crouch and Mazur, 2001 ), SCALE-UP (Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Programs project) in physics ( Beichner et al. , 2007 ), and POGIL (process-oriented guided-inquiry learning) in chemistry ( Moog and Spencer, 2008 ). All of these group-work pedagogies encourage students to construct their own understanding of scientific concepts through a process of negotiation and consensus building with their peers ( Solomon, 1987 ; Latour and Woolgar, 2013 ). Group work also provides a basis for social comparison, social learning, and social cognition ( Solomon et al. , 2010 ), and students working in small groups may make gains in terms of achievement, motivation, and self-efficacy as a result of this comparison ( Bandura, 2000 ; Hernandez et al. , 2013 ).

Several integrated theoretical frameworks have been espoused within educational psychology to explain the different constructs (motivational, social, and cognitive) that influence the achievement effects of group work ( Sweet and Michaelsen, 2007 ; Slavin, 2014 ). Social interdependence theory ( Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ) is a particularly helpful theoretical framework, because it describes five major variables that mediate the effects of cooperation, including motivational, social, and cognitive aspects. The first variable described in social interdependence theory is positive interdependence: individuals’ perception that they can reach their goals if and only if the other individuals with whom they cooperate also reach their goals and, therefore, promote one another’s efforts to achieve the goals. The second variable is individual accountability: the responsibility to complete one’s own share of the work and also facilitate others’ work. The third variable is promotive interactions: individuals motivating and facilitating the work of others through sharing resources, providing help to one another, challenging reasoning and conclusions provided by group members, and taking varying points of view into account. The fourth variable is the appropriate use of social skills: skills in which individuals get to know and trust one another, communicate, support one another, and resolve conflicts that arise. Finally, group work should provide a mechanism for group processing and reflection: encouraging students to set collective goals, assess positive and negative group interactions, and provide feedback to group members. Instructors play a major role in promoting the variables required for these aspects of social interdependence during group work, and students express greater satisfaction with group work when their instructors include support strategies to assess and foster group collaboration ( Chapman and Van Auken, 2001 ).

Recommended support strategies to foster effective collaboration include assigning roles, group contracts, peer evaluations, and peer ratings that measure differences in contributions.

Role Assignment

Assigning tasks or roles for students to assume while completing tasks is recommended as a way to promote individual accountability and ensure that instructors can monitor contributions ( Chapman and Van Auken, 2001 ; Davies, 2009 ). Group work pedagogies like POGIL ( Moog and Spencer, 2008 ) and SCALE-UP ( Beichner et al. , 2007 ) recommend assigning specific roles to promote critical discussion and to prevent students from either dominating discussions or avoiding conflict by accepting the quickest answer during problem-solving tasks ( Heller and Hollabaugh, 1992 ). Role assignment has been shown to promote greater learning gains ( Bailey et al. , 2012 ) and student satisfaction ( Brown, 2010 ). The caveat remains that supervision is required so that students cycle through the cognitive acts of listening and recalling that are necessary for greater exchange of ideas and thus learning ( O’Donnell, 2006 ).

Group Contracts

Groups that discuss expectations before group work begins and draft group contracts that spell out consequences for failure to meet expectations foster appropriate use of social skills ( Chapman and Van Auken, 2001 ; Oakley et al. , 2004 ). Feelings of interdependence, cohesion, psychological safety, and confidence all strengthen the belief that investment in group activities will pay off and thus encourage students to engage in cognitive processes key to learning ( Van den Bossche et al. , 2006 ).

Peer Evaluations

Anonymous peer evaluations in which students reflect on their own and others’ contributions and group dynamics and have the ability to inform the instructor of problems within the group help promote reflection, group processing, and individual accountability ( Harkins and Jackson, 1985 ; Strong and Anderson, 1990 ; Brooks and Ammons, 2003 ; Oakley et al. , 2004 ; Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008 ). Evaluations also help reduce social loafing, a situation in which students in a group commit less effort to a group project, because they believe their lack of effort will not be identified, and free riding, a situation in which students knowingly allow others to complete their work for them ( Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008 ). In Strong and Anderson’s (1990) study of student opinions about group work, students indicated that they believed that peer evaluations do reduce free riding, but they rated other factors—including group cohesiveness, small team size, the option to “divorce” a team member, or the option to leave a team—as having a stronger effect on reducing free riding. Students also rated the divorcing option as more effective at motivating team members than end-of-semester evaluations, which have been shown to be negatively associated with good team experiences ( Bacon et al. , 1999 ). This suggests that peer evaluations may encourage students to tolerate bad behavior, knowing they can exact retribution at the end of the semester. In addition, researchers have found that students may be unlikely to provide honest evaluations of their peers and are unlikely to directly confront free riders ( Strong and Anderson, 1990 ).

Peer Ratings

There are challenges to determining the effort and achievement level of individual students during group tasks. On typical group tasks, all group members work together without being evaluated individually on the final product by the instructor, and all group members receive the same grade for the final product. If the level of contribution differs among group members, then the single group grade may not accurately reflect individual effort or performance. One solution is to collect information on the contributions of each group member using quantitative ratings and to adjust the final scores to reflect lack of effort ( Latane et al. , 1979 ; Bartlett, 1995 ). Students should be aware of the contributions of each member, and if they can be trusted to provide accurate ratings, the ratings could be used to derive a numerical weighting factor to adjust group grades accordingly. Researchers have recommended administering both holistic rubrics in which students are given points that they must divide between the group members to gauge contributions ( Lejk and Wyvill, 2001 ; Johnston and Miles, 2004 ) and analytical rubrics with multiple indicators such as attendance, cooperativeness, and academic contributions to gauge contributions ( Kaufman et al. , 2000 ; Stefanou et al. , 2001 ; Kilic and Cakan, 2006 ). Holistic rubrics have been found to be more effective at identifying very good and very weak contributors to the group, whereas analytic assessments are able to identify small differences in group contributions and may be more effective for providing formative feedback ( Falchikov and Goldfinch, 2000 ; Lejk and Wyvill, 2001 ). Holistic rubrics, however, need to be adjusted by calculating an individual’s contribution to maximize the correlation between actual group scores and true levels of a student’s contribution ( Zhang and Ohland, 2009 ).

Faculty members have reported concern about providing sufficient support to ensure that students are interacting productively during group work in large-enrollment classes ( Pundak and Rozner, 2008 ; Freeman and Greenacre, 2011 ; Barkley et al. , 2014 ). And many faculty attest to difficulties they have encountered implementing group work in their classes and have reported frustration with dysfunctional groups that require a great deal of supervision to ensure equitable student participation and reward productive social interactions ( Kreijns et al. , 2003 ; Davies, 2009 ; Svinicki and Schallert, 2016 ).

In an attempt to improve student learning through group work, we implemented many of these recommended strategies for supporting group dynamics in a very large enrollment introductory biology course that was often linked to poor student learning, attitudes, and retention ( Seymour and Hewitt, 1997 ; Barr et al. , 2008 ; Chang et al. , 2011 ; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016 ). In a preliminary study, we were able to demonstrate that group activities benefited students at diverse performance levels, but the students also reported persistent social loafing ( Chang and Hannafin, 2015 ).

Managing group dynamics for successful implementation of group work is time intensive for instructors. We hypothesized that exploring students’ perceptions of group work might provide insights into which time-consuming support strategies (e.g., role assignment, group contracts, peer evaluations at the midpoint and endpoint of the semester, and summative peer ratings) students were using effectively. We also hoped that the perceptions of students in high-performance groups could provide insight into critical features to be nurtured and enhanced in all groups. Because this was a primarily observational study aimed at characterizing student perceptions of group work and use of support strategies designed to monitor and improve group interactions in a large-enrollment college classroom, we employed a concurrent mixed-methods design ( Creswell, 2009 ). We characterized student perceptions of group work using qualitative interviews and written comments submitted on peer-evaluation surveys. We also compared the interviews, comments, and numeric peer-evaluation ratings given by and from students at different achievement levels, which we determined using quantitative data from course assessments ( Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2003 ). Table 1 outlines our major research questions and the data sources used to address each question.

Overview of research questions and data sources

Instructional Setting

We examined learning performance and group work for 246 students enrolled in an introductory biology course for non–­science majors at a large public university in the southeastern United States. The course included two 75-minute classes per week and comprised five different content units. Class time was devoted to providing core content through instructor minilectures and daily individual and group activities that required students to apply the content to specific situations ( Brickman et al. , 2012 ). Individual assignments included clicker questions, preclass written assignments to prepare for group work, practice tests, and a final unit test composed of multiple-choice questions. Group work included completing in-class worksheets to structure or organize content knowledge (e.g., drawing a diagram, finding relevant resources from websites) as well as outside-class group projects that required students to apply their knowledge ( Brickman et al. , 2012 ). In addition, after completing unit tests individually, group members collaboratively answered the same test items again to earn a group test score. Group activities were designed to build social interaction and interdependence through deadlines that required individual work be submitted before beginning group work, initial activities that built rapport, and grading that emphasized attaining common goals ( Deutsch, 1949 ). All group members received the same score for work from their group. All activities and test scores were weighted to compute each student’s final course grade: individual test scores: 36%; clicker questioning: 12%; individual assignments to prepare for group work: 12%; group assignments and projects: 28%; and group tests: 12%.

Group Formation and Support Strategies

During the second week of the semester, the instructor asked students to organize themselves into groups of four or five members, resulting in 65 groups that completed group assignments and tests together throughout the rest of the semester. Owing to a 5% withdrawal rate, no five-member groups were present at the midpoint. The instructor did not dictate group composition because of a lack of clear consensus from the literature on the most effective characteristics to use when forming groups and because autonomous group composition minimized logistical and practical problems in course administration (i.e., tackling individual group requests) and students’ resistance (i.e., request for changing groups or sitting near the front of the auditorium). Individuals assigned themselves to different roles within their groups for daily activities: manager/spokesperson, researcher, recorder, and whiteboard writer. The manager/spokesperson supported group processes during discussions (i.e., time management, soliciting ideas from all, speaking for the group); researchers gathered additional ideas for the group from class notes and the Internet; recorders summarized discussions and submitted group worksheets; and whiteboard writers created diagrams and figures on worksheets. At the beginning and during the semester, the instructor gave mini-lessons to remind groups to rotate roles in an attempt to balance participation by each group member ( Johnson et al. , 1998 ). The instructor also created a section in the group worksheets where the assigned roles of each student in the group could be recorded.

Throughout the semester, groups were given opportunities to promote productive interactions and mediate conflict. At the beginning of the semester, groups created a contract in which they established expectations, set ground rules (e.g., penalties for failure to participate), and established communication channels. At the midpoint of the semester, groups were encouraged to revise and resubmit their contracts if necessary and to complete an anonymous online peer-evaluation survey to provide midcourse feedback to one another. Students also completed an online, end-of-course peer-evaluation survey to assess each group member’s contribution. These surveys included eight numeric questions that asked students to evaluate individual group members’ preparation, participation, collaboration, attitude, and performance during group work. For example, “Did this person participate in group discussions during class? This could include sitting with the group during class, attending regularly, etc.” Students ranked each team member on a four-point scale for each question (1 = unacceptable performance, I would fire this person; 2 = improvement needed; 3 = good, met or exceeded all expectations; 4 = outstanding, a rare individual). Text for each question in the survey can be viewed in Appendix A in the Supplemental Material. Each group member was finally asked to respond to one open-ended question: “Please provide written comments about each of your team members so they can learn how you viewed their contributions to the team. After all evaluations are submitted they will be able to read these comments but not tell who they came from. You and they can use this feedback to improve your future performance.” Students were also asked to rate the quality of each group mate’s contributions to the group on a scale of 0–100, similar to earning a grade in a class. Students were told that their group scores would be adjusted based on the average rating that they received. The Opensource online platform that we used (Simple Team Experience Assessment Measure—STEAM) used the expected-contribution method ( Lejk et al. , 1996 ), which is based on adjusting the group grade by adding a deviance from the expected contribution. If you have a group of four members, each member is expected to contribute 25% of the work. If a group member’s average score indicates that he or she completed only 20% of the work, then the assigned group score is adjusted by subtracting 5% of the group score. Group members were able to view the scores and comments from their peers after all group members had submitted their responses.

Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis

Three different measures were used to compare individual students and groups. First, we calculated group performance levels based on the rank-ordered group assignment scores and averaged group scores on a series of group tests. We were interested in how groups performed relative to one another, so we rank ordered assignments within each unique unit, because topics differed and the variance of scores differed between units ( Kruskal and Wallis, 1952 ). To have an adequate number of groups for statistical analysis, we ranked groups based on the median group score. Groups ranked above the median score were classified as high-performance groups ( n = 32), while groups that scored lower than the median were categorized as lower-performance groups ( n = 33). Categorizing groups into high-performance groups and low-performance groups allowed us to select balanced numbers of interviewees and compare the perceptions of students within those groups (more details about the distribution of the interviewers are described in the Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis section).

Second, we used final course grades to divide students into higher-, mid-, and lower-scorer categories. Students ranked in the highest 33% using ranked final course grades were categorized as higher scorers ( n = 82), those in the middle 33% as midscorers ( n = 79), and those in the lowest 33% as lower scorers ( n = 84). This allowed us to quickly identify students to interview to address question 1, which compared perceptions of higher- and lower-scoring students within groups, and question 2, which addressed the use of group-based support strategies before the end of the course. A breakdown of the distribution of students at high-, mid-, and low-scoring levels is outlined in Figure 1 . Eighty-seven percent of the groups contained a mixture of students of different scoring levels (heterogeneous), rather than containing students of similar scoring levels (homogeneous). All of the high-performance groups included at least one higher-scoring student, while only 10 of the 33 low-performance groups included at least one or two more higher-scoring students in their groups.

Most student groups, either high-performance (A) or low-performance (B), were composed of a mixture of high-, mid-, and low-scoring members and classified as heterogeneous (top row), 57/65 total groups. A much smaller number of groups (8/57) were homogeneous (bottom row) and were composed of either all high- (three groups), all mid- (one group), or all low-scoring students (four groups).

To test our research question 4, whether numeric peer-evaluation ratings served as a quantitative measure of students’ perceptions of their group members, we used the average ratings that students received to compare average ratings between high- and low-performance groups as well as high- and low-scoring students within those groups. To investigate the effects of group performance, we used a random effects model that can control for the variance associated with random factors that may occur during the interaction between students and groups ( Judd et al. , 2012 ). By using random effects for students in different groups, we controlled for the influence of different student interactions associated with group variables. In our model, we used the score gap between group and individual scores as a dependent variable and group performance levels as the fixed effects. To determine whether a relationship existed between peer-evaluation scores and individual test scores, we used a paired t test. A student’s peer-evaluation rating score was used as an independent variable, and individual test scores as a dependent variable.

Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis

We conducted in-depth interviews ( Esterberg, 2002 ) to explore the range of students’ perceptions, attitudes, and participation in group work in order to gain better insight into the briefer comments made on the peer evaluations. Appendix B in the Supplemental Material contains our interview protocol and question items. We recruited interviewees at the beginning of the last unit (unit 5). The first author (Y.C.) verbally recruited interviewees by announcing the interview in front of the class and sending out an email. The verbal and email announcements included information of the purposes and the foci of the study and the interview. From among 27 volunteers, the authors purposefully selected 15 interviewees to ensure that we had seven higher-scoring students and eight lower-scoring students based on their test scores. Among the seven higher scorers whom we interviewed, five were from high-performance groups and two were from low-performance groups. Among the eight lower scorers whom we interviewed, three were from high-performance groups and five were from low-performance groups. The number of high and low scorers selected for interviews was related to the proportion of these students in the respective groups (see Figure 2 for the group score distribution of the interviewers and Figure 1 for breakdown of student distribution in groups). Thirteen groups were represented in our student interviewees; three were homogeneous groups (composed of all lower scorers), while 10 were heterogeneous groups (with a mix of high, mid-, and low scorers). Interviewee profiles with pseudonyms to maintain students’ confidentiality are provided in Table 2 . Emerged themes and quotes are summarized in Table 3 .

Performance levels of high- and low-performance groups. To select a balanced numbers of high- and low-performance groups, we divided groups into higher (> 175) and low-performance groups (< 175) using the median (175). Equal numbers of interviewees were selected (dark blue) from both types of groups.

Interviewee profiles

H = Higher scorer, L = Lower scorer, HG = Higher-performing group, LG = Lower-performing group.

Excerpts per theme from in-depth interviews

Interview data were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded through multiple transcript readings by both authors. Specifically, we employed thematic analysis of the student interviews using ATLAS.ti v. 7.1 software. One researcher created a codebook related to how students perceived the group work and how it influenced their learning. Then the researchers worked together to refine the codebook and identify and characterize themes represented by the codes ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ).

We were interested in determining how statements made during interviews might be represented in comments on student evaluations of their peers, and we also believed these comments could provide insight into how students gave feedback to their group members to answer research question 3. Triangulating data from various sources provided a mechanism to verify and support the breadth and overall representation of our understanding of what students meant in their comments ( Morse et al. , 2002 ). Students from 65 groups provided a total of 1341 entries on the midsemester and end-of-semester peer evaluations. We excluded 120 blank entries without text from further analysis. Of 26 students who failed to leave comments, seven were high-scoring students, nine were lower-scoring students, and 10 were midscorers. Most of the students (20) were from high-performance groups, and only three were from low-performance groups. We analyzed the remaining 1221 comments to provide insight into what students told their peers to help them improve group dynamics.

Because these comments could help determine whether or not students were taking advantage of this as a vehicle to express positive as well as negative perceptions, we began with categorizing a priori codes into three categories: positive, neutral, and negative indicators/experiences. We then added more a priori codes elicited from theoretical models of collaborative or cooperative learning that focused on explaining student motivation and engagement. For example, social interdependence theory ( Johnson and Johnson, 2009 ) was considered, because the analysis aimed to examine how student perceptions of group work could derive from both interactions between individual students and group-level attributes that support effective group work. A priori codes that reflected students’ perceptions of group work in peer-evaluation comments and interviews are represented in Appendix C in the Supplemental Material. We initiated the coding of peer-evaluation comments by using these codes and added emerging codes as necessary. The first author (Y.C.) initiated the analysis and then the second author (P.B.) reviewed the analysis. Initially, 21 codes, including 11 codes for positive perspectives and 10 codes for negative perspectives on collaborative learning, were used to analyze peer-evaluation comments. After the second author (P.B.) reviewed the codes, the codebook was modified and clarified through discussion. Two codes were merged in both the positive and negative perspectives, and three more codes were added. Finally, both authors reviewed the coding together, discussing and merging codes through consensus, and adding emergent codes as needed. Interrater reliability ( Cohen, 1968 ) between the two authors was achieved at 0.85, considered as very good strength of agreement ( Altman, 1991 ). Among all codes, 18 codes (10 positive, six negative, and two neutral) finally emerged from the analysis of peer-evaluation comments (Appendix C in the Supplemental Material).

Students in Both High- and Low-Performance Groups Valued the Social and Cognitive Support Provided by Groups.

Seven interviewees (four from high-performance groups and three from low-performance groups) mentioned the social and cognitive benefits of group work. Among four students in higher-performance groups, two were higher scorers and the other two were lower scorers. Ruth, like other students (even those in lower-performance groups), exhibited positive perceptions about the benefits of group work, saying, “Our group got along a lot better with just interacting with each other. I’ve definitely learned better in a group because I had the opportunity to kind of answer some of their questions which helps me understand it more.” Amy, a lower scorer in a higher-performance group, also described group work as “a nice little support system” that helped her to feel like she was “not alone in the class.” Ethan, another lower scorer in a higher-performance group, mentioned that having group members helped him to understand course concepts, as they “elaborated on the concept and went into a little deeper context with me and tried to explain in it my terms in a way that the teacher couldn’t because there is just so many people.” Higher scorers in higher-performance groups also acknowledged benefits of group work, as it allowed them to “have friends in the class who can discuss things with typical lectures” (Beth) and “study together to prepare for the exam” (Chen). (See Table 3 for additional interview excerpts for each theme.)

Students Assigned Roles Depending on Circumstances and Ignored Group Contracts.

We were interested in determining students’ perceptions of the support strategies (e.g., role assignment and creating and revising group contracts) used to increase individual accountability and appropriate use of social skills. In general, students did not perceive the support strategies as beneficial. Regarding assigning or rotating roles, roles were naturally assigned “with respect and making it fair” (Amy) and rotated. One interviewee mentioned, “ We always rotated who would actually compile all of the finished work and put it into a document and submit it to the class” (Jenn). None of the interviewees used role assignments consistently, citing a variety of reasons. Some groups felt they were unnecessary. “Our group didn’t really do the role assignments, it was just kind of ‘You get it this time, I’ll get it next time’” (Jenn). Others reported grappling with disorganized or absent students. “If you’re not communicating as well … you don’t get to do the part that you want to do” (Emma). “Even though we assign each other the role, not everybody follows it in a way and they usually forget about it, it’s not something they are used to having to do” (Min). Finally, some students expressed anxiety about assuming certain roles. “You were supposed to assign someone each of those jobs but I found it kind of limiting sometimes because … I got put as manager except I don’t like raising my hand and talking in front of people and this other guy in my group did and he knew a lot of the answers” (Beth). Another interviewee commented that with such a large class they “never really had to use that role because we weren’t really asked questions like in class about stuff” (Zoe).

In terms of the group contract, students described it as “another assignment that we had to do so we could leave” (Karen). Although some groups set punishment rules, such as “treat a coffee for all in the group if you missed a class without communication with group members” (Chen), group members reported that they rarely abided by the rules from their contracts. In fact, most of the groups (59 out of 65 groups) simply resubmitted their original contracts without revision at the midpoint of the semester, with only seven groups revising their contracts to provide better feedback to one another. One group revised their contract following discussion about lack of compliance with the initial contract. However, the group members still did not comply: “They all said, ‘Sure’ and then they don’t do it” (Min). We also found peer pressure was significant when it came to opting not to follow through on punishments or criticize group member’s behaviors. “I’d never tell these guys, because I didn’t want them to say something about me” (Ethan).

We did find that students perceived the group contract as useful when it came to setting up communication methods. For example, “we all got our phone numbers and everything” (Min) and “when missing a class, text to all” (Beth). However, in well-functioning groups, the group contract was not needed. Six interviewees, five from high-performance groups and one from a low-performance group, mentioned that their groups did not need to use the group contract, because they encountered few challenges. For example, members from high-performance groups agreed that “we know we would follow through when we had stuff and we never really had to use the group contract” (Brian). As one of the interviewees mentioned, “I think if there had been problems in our group, the contract would’ve been a bigger role” (Nora).

Students in Both High- and Low-Performance Groups Reported Social Loafing.

Regardless of group performance, most of the interviewees reported social loafing issues during group work that resulted in them having to assume responsibility for submitting work for others. Min, a higher-scoring student in a high-performance group, stated, “[My group members] just sent me all copy and paste. They didn’t do any research and follow any APA format. But they simply sent me the link of the resources and said, ‘here is the link.’ So I have to go back to the website that they’d found and had to summarize them.” Lower-scorer Ruth, who was in a low-performance group, commented that “it’s more difficult to get all the members to contribute equally especially if someone is … doing all the work and then other people feel like they can relax. You’re doing all the work and I can just sit back and get a hundred sort of like the prisoner effect.”

Student remarks differed when they described the same situation, one in which they had to take over and perform work to make up for noncontributing students. Min, a high-scoring student in a high-performance group, criticized other group members’ inadequate participation, even though her group achieved higher scores on group work. “Normally they don’t do the pre-quiz because it’s not for a grade. But like I do it just for my good, but they don’t. It feels like they don’t care and know I’ll do it anyway” (Min). While Ruth, a lower scorer in a lower-performance group described her experience as “getting sucked into all of the group work.” Hard-working students reported experiencing the “sucker effect,” in which they began to pull back on the amount of work they contributed to force noncontributing members to work: “We were like ‘We’ll say we don’t understand this part so she can do it’ and then she like didn’t know and just held it until the end of the class and was like, ‘I don’t get it’… and so my friend got kind of bothered and she snatched it from her and did it” (Monica).

Perceptions of the Value of Group Activities Differed between High- and Low-Scoring Students.

We found that three of the seven higher-scoring students interviewed, two from high-performance groups and one from a low-performance group, remarked that they found group activities were critical for their learning and that they provided an opportunity to apply what they learned from lecture to their real life. For example, Beth, who was a higher scorer, reported that group work was “more real-life situations which I found interesting because it was more relatable and like scientific theories that would apply to you … based on how it would affect something in real life.” Six of the seven lower scorers interviewed, in both high- and low-performance groups, tended to perceive group activities as time-consuming. For example, Jenn asked, “Why do that and spend an hour going through all of that stuff when I could just finish it in ten minutes?” She felt, “It was like a stumbling around so that didn’t really help with the learning.” Zoe, another lower scorer, echoed this sentiment, describing group work as “something [that] doesn’t seem very important and sound[s] silly,” and said, “I don’t see any relationship with my real life.”

High- and Low-Performance Groups Left Very Similar Comments on Peer Evaluations.

We compared patterns observed between the overall frequency of peer-evaluation comments (positive or negative, as well as those expressing specific ideas) between students in high- and low-performance groups. We calculated the frequency of the code by total number of submitted comments. We found that there was no statistically significant association between group performance levels and the trends on the positive or negative comments; x 2 (34) = 30.78, p = 0.626. In addition, regardless of group performance levels, three categories of ideas were commonly expressed (appearing in more than 10% of all comments) in both groups in both the first and second peer-evaluation surveys ( Figure 3 ). A fourth and fifth category did differ in its frequency between groups of different performance levels, which we will describe later. No distinctive patterns were found in the comments categorized as no responses or not applicable.

Frequency comparison for the top four ideas provided as anonymous comments on peer evaluations. Student groups were categorized as higher-performing ( n = 32) and lower-performing ( n = 33) based on the rank-ordered group assignment scores and averaged group test scores. A total of 1221 comments on peer evaluations were coded using 21 a priori categories. Each number (%) in the figure is calculated as the frequency of the code/total numbers of submitted comments.

The most common idea mentioned (>55% of all codes present) in peer evaluations involved individual accountability. Individual accountability involves students completing their own work (personal accountability) and facilitating other students completing their work (accountability to the group; Johnson et al. , 2014 ). Students mentioned aspects that reflected positively on their peers: “always doing her part,” “completing assigned works in a timely and efficient manner,” and “pulls his weight and helps with all group work.” See Appendix C in the Supplemental Material for additional codes, summaries of ideas represented in those codes, and example quotes. We found that comments about individual accountability were equally predominant in high- and low-performance groups and at the midpoint and endpoint of the semester (χ 2 = 4, p = 0.261).

The second most prevalent idea that emerged in peer-evaluation comments concerned the cognitive learning supports provided by peers (22–31% of comments contained this idea). Students seemed to appreciate aspects of the promotive interactions mentioned by Johnson et al. (2014) that enhanced social constructivism, such as engaging in a dialogue with their peers to ask and answer questions, share reasoning, and build upon each other’s understanding until they reach mutual agreement ( Phelps and Damon, 1989 ; Slavin, 1991 ). Student evaluation comments mentioned students “explaining difficult concepts” or a peer “helps us understand” or “takes the time to learn the material so she can teach others.” The degree to which students mentioned learning supports appeared to differ between higher- and low-performance groups when comparing the midpoint to endpoint survey, but these differences were not significant (χ 2 = 3, p = 0.223).

The third most frequent idea that emerged in the peer-evaluation comments concerned students providing procedural support. This idea was present in more than 17% of all comments. However, there was no statistical difference between high- and low-performance groups mentioning procedural support (χ 2 = 4, p = 0.261). Procedural support involved helping to complete steps to finalize a task that were not connected to cognitive activities but aided in making decisions and completing assignments in a timely manner. Examples of comments that were coded for procedural support mentioned their peers helping to “keep everyone focused and turn in our papers at the end of class” or being “very organized and keeps the group on track, schedules group meetings.”

The fourth most frequent idea that was mentioned differed depending on the time of the semester the evaluation was given and the performance level of the group. At the midpoint of the semester, the fourth most frequent idea mentioned in high-performance groups involved social/interpersonal communication skills (10.3% of comments). This idea included the ability to get along with group members and communicate effectively, for example, “displays a positive attitude and is very encouraging,” “easy to talk to and easy to get along,” and “very flexible and open to everyone’s contributions and a fun person to have in the group.” Social perceptiveness has emerged as a major factor in predicting group performance ( Woolley et al. , 2015 ). Interestingly, social/interpersonal communication was not a frequent idea mentioned in low-performance groups until the end of the semester. In those groups, the fourth most frequent type of comment left at the midpoint was to not leave any comment at all (13% of comments left in low-performance groups were left intentionally blank). By the end of the semester, social/interpersonal skills rose in its frequency to become the fourth most frequent code mentioned in evaluations from students in low-performance groups (10.3% in the end-of-semester peer evaluations).

Students in high- and low-performance groups also differed in the degree to which they mentioned that their peers provided positive interdependence, with promoting the group’s success by working together seen as a fifth frequent idea. Calculating the percentage of frequency of the positive interdependence code by the total number of submitted comments, students in high-performance groups mentioned positive interdependence in 12% of all comments on the final peer evaluation, up from only 6% on the midsemester evaluation. Lower-performance groups mentioned positive interdependence on the midsemester evaluations (7% of comments); however, this level dropped to less than 2% of the final evaluation.

When comparing comments between heterogeneous groups of either higher- or lower-performance levels, we found that students in heterogeneous groups leave more comments with a negative perspective (31.25% on midpoint evaluation and 28.57% on final evaluation) compared with homogeneous groups (nothing on mid and 18.18% on final), regardless of the timing of the evaluation.

Influence of Group Work on Individual Learning Achievement within Groups.

We compared the mean score differences between group and individual test scores in units 1 and 4 to understand the influence of group work on individual learning. The random intercepts model results show that group performance levels influenced score differences between individual and group tests from unit 1 and unit 4. As shown in Table 4 , both high- and low-performance groups actually decreased the mean score differences between group and individual test scores from unit 1, F (1, 122) = 19.83, p < 0.005, to unit 4, F (1, 100.72) = 20.29, p < 0.005. In unit 1, the main effect of group performance levels on mean score differences between individual and group test scores are significant ( p < 0.005), estimating that the mean score differences of high-performance groups are 12.92 (SE = 2.68) higher than those of low-performance groups. In unit 4, the estimated mean score differences of high-performance groups are 11.85 (SE = 2.9) higher than those of low-performance groups.

Estimates of fixed effects of score gap between group and individual scores in units 1 and 4

Within groups, high-performance group score differences decreased significantly from unit 1 (M = −12.04, SE = 1.83) to unit 4 (M = −6.78, SE = 1.70), p < 0.005. Low-performance groups also decreased from unit 1 (M = 24.96, SE = 2.26) to unit 4 (M = 18.63, SE = 2.10). However, high-performance groups demonstrated a greater reduction (43.7%) in the learning gap between group members compared with low-performance groups (25.3%).

Peer-Evaluation Ratings: Indicative of Performance but Possibly Biased

We found that, when students were asked to provide quantitative ratings of their peers, the ratings differed based on their groups’ level of performance, F (1, 164) = 12.97, p < 0.001. In groups ranked as higher performing, students gave higher mean peer ratings to group members (M = 102.63, SD = 5.83) than students in low-performance groups (M = 92.32, SD = 19.15). As shown in Figure 4 , in terms of individual differences between group members, t tests revealed statistically significant differences, t (166) = −20.21, p < 0.001, r = 0.32. Students who earned lower test scores received higher mean peer-evaluation ratings when they were in high-performance groups (M = 101.21, SD = 1.99) rather than in low-performance groups (M = 86.96, SD = 25.63). Higher scorers received relatively similar peer-evaluation ratings from both high-performance groups (M = 101.78, SD = 5.96) and low-performance groups (M = 97.35, SD = 7.04). This resulted in greater mean score differences between higher and lower scorers in low-performance groups (mean score differences = 14.25) than between higher and lower scorers in high-performance groups (mean score differences = 5.53). In other words, students in low-performance groups were holding lower-scoring students to a greater degree of accountability on peer ratings than lower scorers in high-performance groups.

Peer-evaluation ratings and group performance. The average numerical ratings (out of 100) that students wrote on peer evaluations differed for high- and low-performance groups. The average rating for all students in high-performance groups (M = 102.63, SD = 5.83) was higher than students in low-performance groups (M = 92.32, SD = 19.15). Lower-scoring students received higher mean peer-evaluation ratings when they were in high-performance groups (M = 101.21, SD = 1.99) than in low-performance groups (M = 86.96, SD = 25.63). Higher scorers received relatively similar peer-evaluation ratings from both high-performance groups (M = 101.78, SD = 5.96) and low-performance groups (M = 97.35, SD = 7.04), t (166) = −20.21, p < 0.001, r = 0.32).

To understand group work in a real-world classroom setting, we conducted our study in a classroom that allowed students to self-assemble into groups. We conducted a mixed-methods analysis to investigate how students’ personal scoring in the course and their groups’ levels of performance on group tasks affected their perception of group activities. Much of a student’s individual performance was calculated after group work occurred. Group and individual performance, though, may not be completely independent of each other, because students who score highly on individual tests could have an increased effect on their groups’ scores on assignments and tests, and groups that worked well together could have had a positive effect on individual grades. Collection of an initial independent measure of a student’s abilities (e.g., grade point average [GPA] or pretest scores) or analysis of discourse practices during group work would be needed to further elucidate the relationship between individual ability on group performance. We also interviewed students on their use of strategies such as role assignment and group contracts, and we compared the comments and ratings from anonymous peer evaluations to determine what differences could be observed between high- and low-performance groups. We found that, regardless of group performance levels, salient elements that might affect students’ perceptions of the group work emerged. We did find differences in perceptions of group work, some comments on peer evaluations, and ratings between individuals. Our hope was to uncover factors that could explain why groups might not be working effectively and to provide faculty with a better mechanism to identify and solve group problems. However, we did not conduct empirical tests for these observations, so we will use our results to suggest future research to expand on our findings.

Without Supervision, Students Fail to Use Role Assignment and Group Contracts to Their Fullest

In our study, students were asked to self-assign to specific roles and rotate the roles within the group activities in a very large classroom without supervision (either from undergraduate peers or graduate students). It has been reported that structured discussion with role assignment enhances students’ engagement in interactive information sharing ( Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch, 2009 ), knowledge construction, knowledge transfer ( Kane et al. , 2002 ), and equitable participation ( Savadori et al. , 2001 ). In the in-depth interviews, however, students did not report engaging in what Chan (2001) described as detailed “problem-centered” discourse that involved recognition of the problem, formulation of questions, and construction of explanations. Instead, they reported that they felt that they did not need official roles. Some students struggled assigning roles to absent or inactive members, and other students commented that certain roles were never used because of the number of groups and the difficulty hearing ideas from all groups during class discussion. Instead, they reported using roles to subdivide labor, merging individual contributions to a final document without critically evaluating members’ submissions, failing to communicate, and completing a task at the very last minute so that it could not be reviewed by all group members (see comments in Students in Both High- and Low-Performance Groups Reported Social Loafing ). All these obstructions to the collaboration process erode the sense of trust needed for the social interactions required for social interdependence. Students in our groups were only provided with brief descriptions of what group roles entailed and were not explicitly trained to use roles effectively. Several research groups have attempted to test the effect of providing scripts to enhance students’ use of cognitive prompts during group work ( O’Donnell, 1996 ; Gillies, 2003 ; Brewer and Klein, 2006 ). It would be interesting to determine whether these scripts can be useful in the very large lecture settings we encountered.

Group contracts provide a mechanism to initiate discussion of expectations and reservations, to strengthen social skills, and to build interpersonal relationships critical to effective group work ( Oakley et al. , 2004 ; Davies, 2009 ; Shimazoe and Aldrich, 2010 ). It is clear from our interviews, however, that students did not view the completion of a group contract as a significant vehicle to strengthening interdependence or other key social skills. They felt the assignment was cursory, just something to be completed without depth of thought. Student teams become progressively more collaborative and productive over time ( Hong et al. , 2014 ), with successful teams demonstrating constant levels of socioemotional and procedural support ( Kwon et al. , 2014 ). So, rather than assigning a simple contract at the beginning of the course, instructors may need to provide more opportunities for deeper interactions that build trust and a sense of belonging ( Kreijns et al. , 2003 ), to be conscious of the fact that trust can be easily eroded when members lower their individual participation and commitment toward quality work ( Kreijns et al. , 2003 ), and to provide greater opportunities for identifying and resolving conflict ( Brooks and Ammons, 2003 ). We found that students were not relying on group contracts to set punishments for lack of participation and that other mechanisms need to be employed to help groups resolve conflicts (see Peer Ratings May Be Biased against Low-Scoring Students in Low-Performance Groups ). An alternative assignment with more utility might be to engage in an initial team-building activity in which students share contact information to begin to build socioemotional interactions like getting to know one another by sharing hobbies, interests, and experiences ( Oakley et al. , 2004 ). Researchers could test the efficacy of such an assignment using measures like the Team Interdependence ( Van der Vegt et al. , 2001 ), Team Cohesiveness ( Carless and De Paola, 2000 ), or Psychological Safety ( Edmondson, 1999 ) surveys.

Peer-Evaluation Comments Are Not Useful for Identifying Group Dysfunction

Anonymous peer evaluations have been suggested as a method for identifying inequity and other problematic group issues ( Wenzel, 2007 ; Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008 ). Peer evaluations have been shown to reduce the incidence of free riding and to improve student attitudes toward groups and group projects if they are done early and frequently ( Feichtner and Davis, 1984 ; Brooks and Ammons, 2003 ). Using performance on group assessments to identify high- and low-performance groups, we asked whether performance could be differentiated using responses to students’ peer-evaluation comments and numerical ratings. We also used students’ responses to in-depth interviews to provide context and explanations for our observations. Several assumptions may limit our findings: We must assume that students were willing to communicate honestly about problems that were occurring during group work. We also must rely on students’ ability to recognize what constitutes effective group functioning. Also, we assume that, because a group is performing well on assignments, they are functioning better than a group that is not earning high scores on group assignments and tests. It is possible that high-performance groups do better on assignments because one high-scoring student has taken on more of the responsibility. However, it is clear from our analysis of how the score gap between individual and group tests is minimized in high-performance groups ( Table 4 ) that learning as measured by the level of scoring on individual tests improves for low-scoring members of these groups. This study does not clarify the reason for this improvement, but high-performance groups had a higher percentage of high-scoring students, so access to these students could be one important variable. With this in mind, we were surprised that comments on anonymous peer evaluations do not adequately distinguish between high- and low-performance groups, considering that the major comment codes were similar in both these groups at the middle and end of the semester, with only a few subtle differences. The data did, however, spur us to hypothesize that one of the major differences between high- and low-performance groups may derive from student attitudes and appreciation of the value of group work to their learning overall.

We found that all groups, regardless of their success, clearly viewed individual accountability as their basic responsibility as a group member. This constituted the most frequent comment in peer evaluations from both high- and low-performance groups at both the midpoint and end of the semester. Individual accountability, although critical and mentioned as the primary comment in peer-evaluation comments, should be seen as a minimal requirement for effective group work. In well-designed group work, task assessments and grading for individual contribution play a greater role in promoting and enforcing individual accountability than self-regulation from group members. From a cognitive learning perspective, consensus building and coconstruction of knowledge ( Solomon, 1987 ; Latour and Woolgar, 2013 ) constitute a more effective method for enhancing learning during group work than promoting completion of tasks by divvying up the work. Students bring misconceptions about their fellow students’ attitudes and abilities to group work that prevent them from distinguishing peers who were deliberately failing to contribute from peers who were struggling academically and contributing to the best of their abilities ( Freeman and Greenacre, 2011 ). Without some clarity, peer evaluations can reinforce these attitudes. Providing students with a more careful evaluation of cognitive behaviors (e.g., asking to list individual efforts toward completing group activities such as editing, writing portions, finding references) and creating task structures that ensure that students provide explanations or elaborations could help produce more turn-taking, productive discourse, and appreciation that students bring varying levels of expertise and contributions to understanding. Student groups that exhibit networks of communication with frequent interpersonal interactions exhibit higher cognitive complexity and performance overall ( Curs¸eu et al. , 2012 ).

It is interesting that peer-evaluation comments related to communicating effectively were less frequently observed in lower-performance groups. Students in lower-performance groups do eventually mention this, but not until later in the semester. In addition to communication, students in high- and low-performance groups expressed an appreciation for the value and importance of positive interdependence in comments on midsemester evaluations. However, students in low-performance groups were less likely to mention positive interdependence in the end-of-semester evaluations. Reliance on group members to achieve common goals has been consistently identified as a critical factor in increasing collaboration, and its effect on achievement ( Slavin, 1991 ; Webb and Palincsar, 1996 ; Johnson et al. , 2007 ; Scager et al. , 2016 ). High-performance groups may work better because they perceive the value of group work from the beginning of the course and recognize their group members for providing features of learning support, communication, and positive interdependence ( Kwon et al. , 2014 ). The absence of comments about positive interdependence in low-performance groups at the end-of-semester evaluations is not unexpected: they were not performing effectively on assignments. However, in considering the implications for instructors, these are not the comments that are showing up most frequently, so it would be hard to identify dysfunctional groups using this feature.

There are several limitations to our findings, and additional research is needed to corroborate the correlations we observed between these self-report measures and academic performance. Our finding that lower-scoring students are critical of group work comes from interview data. It would be interesting to extend our work by surveying an entire course with a group-work satisfaction survey to determine whether our findings extend to all students within the course. We did not ask students to provide detailed self-reports on their own contributions to each assignment. These may prove useful for further studies that could compare individual self-reports (self-evaluations) with anonymous peer evaluations to correlate with individual and group performance measures. Interview and reflection journals may also prove important in determining the extent to which self-report indicators can be employed with either individual or consensus self-assessment measures. Instructors could then provide adaptive scaffolding to support students’ monitoring and reflection on their learning depending on the progress of group work. For example, when groups perform poorly, instructors would be able to provide extra procedural support (e.g., providing a checklist, suggesting using track-changes options to record individual contributions) or strategic support (e.g., providing summary notes or extra review sessions).

In addition to their ineffectiveness at identifying group dysfunction, peer evaluations may negatively impact how students interact with one another. During the interviews, students reported that they were concerned about the possibility of their identities being revealed in their peer-evaluation comments and that this would negatively affect their group relationships. It is obvious that students experienced peer pressure even with an online peer-evaluation system designed with a confidential log-in system to ensure anonymity.

As Bacon et al. ’s (1999) study indicated, use of evaluations can be negatively associated with good team experiences. Strong and Anderson (1990) observed that students preferred other factors—including group cohesiveness, small team size, the option to divorce a team member, or the option to leave a team—as stronger countermeasures for reducing free riding.

Peer Ratings May Be Biased against Low-Scoring Students in Low-Performance Groups

We also examined the numerical ratings that students provided for one another as a summative assessment of their effort on group work throughout the semester. This reward or punishment system is designed to deter social loafing, to motivate individual students to enhance their performances, and to account for inequities in students’ contributions. Students’ most common complaints about group work involve uneven contributions from group members ( Livingstone and Lynch, 2000 ; Aggarwal and O’Brien, 2008 ; Pauli et al. , 2008 ; Shimazoe and Aldrich, 2010 ; Hall and Buzwell, 2012 ). However, there are several problems with using peer ratings to evaluate contributions. First, students have expressed discomfort using ratings that they view as criticizing their friends ( Williams, 1992 ). Student raters may not have the ability to distinguish between high and low contributions, and their ratings may be influenced by their own experiences and norms within their groups ( Loughry et al. , 2007 ). Underperforming students tend to over- or underrate their individual progress, need for support, and understanding ( Winne and Jamieson-Noel, 2002 ). Students often resort to giving all students equal marks on a holistic evaluation compared with a categorical evaluation that queries about individual skills ( Lejk and Wyvill, 2001 ), and unadjusted ratings that students receive from their peers do not correlate with course grades ( Zhang and Ohland, 2009 ). Finally, students within a group may intentionally inflate or reduce the contribution of members due to friendship ( Zhang et al. , 2008 ).

We found that the ratings students gave their peers did correlate with group performance: high-performance groups gave higher ratings to their members compared with low-performance groups. So, groups were clearly using ratings in a small way to indicate poor performance, but their use may only be accurate for high-scoring students who received high ratings in both higher- and low-performance groups. Ratings may not provide an unbiased measure of individual effort or accountability for lower-scoring students, who were more likely to receive lower peer ratings in low-performance groups relative to lower-scoring students in high-performance groups. In the successful student groups that Scager and colleagues (2016) interviewed, students expressed a sense of empathy for their peers who contributed less, noting that it may have been “beyond (their) capabilities at that point.” This may echo what we have seen in our analysis of peer ratings. High-scoring students in high-performance groups may recognize that their lower-scoring peers are simply contributing to the level of their ability. It was clear from their peer-evaluation comments that students in high-performance groups value communication and the sense of communal effort that is afforded by positive interdependence to a greater degree than students in low-performance groups. It is also possible that lower-scoring students in low-performance groups actually participate less than those in high-performance groups and actually earn those lower scores. Considering that students in both high- and low-performance groups complained of social loafing and free riding in interviews and that there are discrepancies within ratings for low-scoring students, there are clearly problems with using peer ratings to evaluate contributions to group work.

Alternative measures may be required to ensure equitable assignment of group contributions to account for biases in peer ratings. We used the expected contributions adjustment to modify group scores based on peer ratings. However, Zhang and Ohland (2009) found this to have higher absolute error and low correlation with true contribution to the team as measured by Monte Carlo simulations or actual class data. They recommend using a between-group difference adjustment that compares students to other students in matched performance groups, explaining that “as peer and self ratings are related to the quality of group work, ratings from groups with different group scores are not directly comparable” ( Zhang and Ohland, 2009, p. 295 ). This is only a partial solution to the problems mentioned earlier. It may also be useful to ask students to specify the cognitive and functional efforts contributed by each group member on each assignment (e.g., an acknowledgments section in which they select from a list of tasks, including conducting a literature search, writing, creating figures, and editing). This could be very effective if students are also asked to reflect qualitatively on the social support (motivation, response to criticism, adaptability, creativity, and attitude) provided by members of their group.

For instructors with extremely limited time, there are also several scales specifically developed to identify conflict ( Jehn and Mannix, 2001 ) or satisfaction ( Van der Vegt et al. , 2001 ) in student teams. These may be a quick way to identify problems in the early stages of group work. Organizations can provide resources for managing team conflict ( Manktelow et al. , 2017 ), and there is evidence that conflict management can improve team performance, even in student teams ( Tekleab et al. , 2009 ). Assigning group members descriptions of group dysfunction and asking students to identify strategies for solving the problem as a way to mediate their own conflicts ( Lerner, 1995 ) or training students in reflexivity ( O’Neill et al. , 2017 ) could provide mechanisms for groups to resolve conflicts before they result in dysfunction.

Are Time-Consuming Strategies That Facilitate Group Work Worth All the Effort?

In this study, we discovered that students of all abilities valued group work for various reasons in addition to how it benefited their learning. In student interviews, we observed that only about one out of seven lower-scoring students perceived group work and instructional facilitating activities to be beneficial for their learning performance (compared with three of seven high-scoring students). Lower-scoring students commented that they found group work to be beneficial primarily as a comfort zone or the incentive for them to go to class because they have friends to talk with. Motivation and social cognition are important mediators of group work ( Slavin, 2014 ). Researchers have suggested that the quality of interactions between group members may be more predictive of learning gains than ability grouping and have recommended that an individual student’s attitude, motivation, or personality traits may provide a better predictor of group success than cognitive ability alone ( Webb et al. , 2002 ; Woolley et al. , 2010 ). In laboratory simulations of group work in which students are tasked with solving visual puzzles, brainstorming, making collective moral judgments, and negotiating limited resources, Woolley and colleagues (2010) have identified a single latent factor they call general collective intelligence—supported by strong interitem correlation on different tasks—that strongly predicts the groups’ ability to solve tasks. Collective intelligence appears to depend both on the composition of the group (e.g., average member intelligence and, more importantly, social sensitivity) and how group members interact when they are assembled (e.g., their conversational turn-taking behavior). Groups in which a few people dominated the conversation were less collectively intelligent than those with a more equal distribution of conversational turn-taking ( Woolley et al. , 2010 ). This was substantiated recently in a study that demonstrated that students who indicate higher levels of comfort with their group members achieve higher learning gains, whereas lower learning gains occur in groups with a reported conversation dominator ( Theobald et al. , 2017 ). Because we allowed students to self-select in this study, it is possible that purposeful group composition may yield different results, as peer relationship can be used as a predictor of student performance within a group ( Klein and Mulvey, 1995 ; Chung et al. , 2018 ). It would be interesting to examine the role of social sensitivity, beliefs about learning, friendship, and social skills such as conversational turn-taking as predictors of group performance in the college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classroom. Also, as one of the goals of this study is to understand the effectiveness of group work in an uncontrolled classroom, we did not measure students’ prior knowledge levels (e.g., Scholastic Aptitude Test scores, college GPA, pretest). To further investigate the influence of the specific group-based activity, we recommend administering pre- and posttests.

We found that, regardless of group composition or group performance level, students were likely to report positive experiences with group members. When group members function interdependently, collective efficacy beliefs have been shown to provide a greater impact on performance: groups with higher self-efficacy beliefs were more likely to encourage group members to use resources more effectively ( Bandura, 2001 ) and to engage in higher-quality discussions ( Wang and Lin, 2007 ). Thus, the establishment of collective group efficacy may be well worth the effort to promote group-learning performance ( Gully et al. , 2002 ).

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

We acknowledge continuing support and feedback from the University of Georgia SEER (Scientists Engaged in Education Research) Center. Permission to survey and audio-record students was obtained from the University of Georgia Institutional Review Board (STUDY2013104060 and MOD00000647).

• Aggarwal P., O’Brien C. L. (2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction . Journal of Marketing Education , ( 3 ), 255–264. [ Google Scholar ]
• Altman D. G. (1991). Practical statistics for medical research . London: Chapman and Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2010). Vision and change: A call to action . Washington, DC: Retrieved August 24, 2018, from www.visionandchange.org/VC_report.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Armstrong N., Chang S.-M., Brickman M. (2007). Cooperative learning in industrial-sized biology classes . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 2 ), 163–171. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bacon D. R., Stewart K. A., Silver W. S. (1999). Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference . Journal of Management Education , ( 5 ), 467–488. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailey C. P., Minderhout V., Loertscher J. (2012). Learning transferable skills in large lecture halls: Implementing a POGIL approach in biochemistry . Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education , ( 1 ), 1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy . Current Directions in Psychological Science , ( 3 ), 75–78. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective . Annual Review of Psychology , , 1–26. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barkley E. F., Cross K. P., Major C. H. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barr D. A., Gonzalez M. E., Wanat S. F. (2008). The leaky pipeline: Factors associated with early decline in interest in premedical studies among underrepresented minority undergraduate students . Academic Medicine , ( 5 ), 503–511. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartlett R. L. (1995). A flip of the coin—a roll of the die: An answer to the free-rider problem in economic instruction . Journal of Economic Education , ( 2 ), 131–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Batz Z., Olsen B. J., Dumont J., Dastoor F., Smith M. K. (2015). Helping struggling students in introductory biology: A peer-tutoring approach that improves performance, perception, and retention . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 2 ), ar16. 10.1187/cbe.14-08-0120 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beichner R. J., Saul J. M., Abbott D. S., Morse J. J., Deardorff D., Allain R. J., Risley J. S. (2007). The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project . Research-Based Reform of University Physics , ( 1 ), 2–39. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun V., Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology . Qualitative Research in Psychology , , 77–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brewer S., Klein J. D. (2006). Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an asynchronous, collaborative learning environment . Educational Technology Research and Development , ( 4 ), 331–354. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brickman P., Gormally C., Francom G., Jardelezz S. E., Schutte V. G. W., Jordan C., Kanizay L. (2012). Media-savvy scientific literacy: Developing critical evaluation skills by investigating scientific claims . American Biology Teacher , ( 6 ), 374–379. 10.1525/Abt.2012.74.6.4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brooks C. M., Ammons J. L. (2003). Free riding in group projects and the effects of timing, frequency, and specificity of criteria in peer assessments . Journal of Education for Business , ( 5 ), 268–272. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown P. J. (2010). Process-oriented guided-inquiry learning in an introductory anatomy and physiology course with a diverse student population . Advances in Physiology Education , ( 3 ), 150–155. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carless S. A., De Paola C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams . Small Group Research , ( 1 ), 71–88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan C. K. K. (2001). Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information . Instructional Science , ( 6 ), 443–479. 10.1023/A:1012099909179 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang M. J., Eagan M. K., Lin M. H., Hurtado S. (2011). Considering the impact of racial stigmas and science identity: Persistence among biomedical and behavioral science aspirants . Journal of Higher Education , ( 5 ), 564–596. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang Y., Hannafin M. J. (2015). The uses (and misuses) of collaborative distance education technologies . Quarterly Review of Distance Education , ( 2 ), 77–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapman K. J., Van Auken S. (2001). Creating positive group project experiences: An examination of the role of the instructor on students’ perceptions of group projects . Journal of Marketing Education , ( 2 ), 117–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chung S., Lount R. B., Jr., Park H. M., Park E. S. (2018). Friends with performance benefits: A meta-analysis on the relationship between friendship and group performance . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , ( 1 ), 63–79. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit . Psychological Bulletin , , 213–220. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Couch B., Brown T., Schelpat T. J., Graham M. J., Knight J. K. (2015). Scientific teaching: Defining a taxonomy of observable practices . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 1 ), ar9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research . Los Angeles: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crouch C. H., Mazur E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results . American Journal of Physics , ( 9 ), 970–977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Curşeu P. L., Janssen S. E., Raab J. (2012). Connecting the dots: Social network structure, conflict, and group cognitive complexity . Higher Education , ( 5 ), 621–629. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies W. M. (2009). Groupwork as a form of assessment: Common problems and recommended solutions . Higher Education , ( 4 ), 563–584. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deutsch M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition . Human Relations , , 129–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edmondson A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams . Administrative Science Quarterly , ( 2 ), 350–383. [ Google Scholar ]
• Esterberg K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research . Boston: McGraw-Hill. [ Google Scholar ]
• Falchikov N., Goldfinch J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks . Review of Educational Research , ( 3 ), 287–322. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feichtner S. B., Davis E. A. (1984). Why some groups fail: A survey of students’ experiences with learning groups . Journal of Management Education , ( 4 ), 58–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman L., Greenacre L. (2011). An examination of socially destructive behaviors in group work . Journal of Marketing Education , ( 1 ), 5–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman S., Eddy S. L., McDonough M., Smith M. K., Okoroafor N., Jordt H., Wenderoth M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , ( 23 ), 8410–8415. 10.1073/pnas.1319030111 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillies R. M. (2003). Structuring Cooperative Group Work in Classrooms . International Journal of Educational Research , ( 1–2 ), 35–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gully S. M., Incalcaterra K. A., Joshi A., Beaubien J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships . Journal of Applied Psychology , ( 5 ), 819–832. 10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall D., Buzwell S. (2012). The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution . Active Learning in Higher Education , , 37–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Handelsman J., Ebert-May D., Beichner R., Bruns P., Chang A., DeHaan R., Wood W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching . Science , ( 5670 ), 521–522. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harkins S. G., Jackson J. M. (1985). The role of evaluation in eliminating social loafing . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , ( 4 ), 457–465. 10.1177/0146167285114011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heller P., Hollabaugh M. (1992). Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups . American Journal of Physics , ( 7 ), 637–644. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernandez P. R., Schultz P. W., Estrada M., Woodcock A., Chance R. C. (2013). Sustaining optimal motivation: A longitudinal analysis of interventions to broaden participation of underrepresented students in STEM . Journal of Educational Psychology , ( 1 ), 89–107. 10.1037/A0029691 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong H. Y., Chang Y. H., Chai C. S. (2014). Fostering a collaborative and creative climate in a college class through idea-centered knowledge-building . Instructional Science , ( 3 ), 389–407. 10.1007/s11251-013-9289-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jehn K. A., Mannix E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance . Academy of Management Journal , ( 2 ), 238–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning . Educational Researcher , ( 5 ), 365–379. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T., Smith K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings . Educational Psychology Review , ( 1 ), 15–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T., Smith K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works ? Change , ( 4 ), 26–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T., Smith K. A. (2000). Constructive controversy: The educative power of intellectual conflict . Change , ( 1 ), 28–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T., Smith K. A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory . Journal on Excellence in University Teaching , ( 4 ), 1–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston L., Miles L. (2004). Assessing contributions to group assignments . Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , ( 6 ), 751–768. [ Google Scholar ]
• Judd C. M., Westfall J., Kenny D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , ( 1 ), 54–69. 10.1037/a0028347 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kane A., Argote L., Levine J. M. (2002). Social identity and knowledge transfer between groups . In Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO . [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaufman D. B., Felder R. M., Fuller H. (2000). Accounting for individual effort in cooperative learning teams . Journal of Engineering Education , ( 2 ), 133–140. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kilic G. B., Cakan M. (2006). The analysis of the impact of individual weighting factor on individual scores . Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , ( 6 ), 639–654. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein H. J.,, Mulvey P. W. (1995). Two investigations of the relationships among group goals, goal commitment, cohesion, and performance . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , ( 1 ), 44–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kreijns K., Kirschner P. A., Jochems W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research . Computers in Human Behavior , ( 3 ), 335–353. PIi S0747-5632(02)00057-2 Doi 10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Kruskal W. H.,, Wallis W. A. (1952). Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis . Journal of the American Statistical Association , ( 260 ), 583–621. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kwon K., Liu Y.-H., Johnson L. P. (2014). Group regulation and social-emotional interactions observed in computer supported collaborative learning: Comparison between good vs. poor collaborators . Computers & Education , , 185–200. [ Google Scholar ]
• Latane B., Williams K., Harkins S. (1979). Many hands make light the work—causes and consequences of social loafing . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , ( 6 ), 822–832. 10.1037//0022-3514.37.6.822 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Latour B. M. D., Woolgar J. (2013). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lejk M., Wyvill M. (2001). Peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A comparison of holistic and category-based approaches . Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , ( 1 ), 61–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lejk M., Wyvill M., Farrow S. (1996). A survey of methods of deriving individual grades from group assessments . Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , ( 3 ), 267–280. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerner L. D. (1995). Making student groups work . Journal of Management Education , ( 1 ), 123–125. [ Google Scholar ]
• Livingstone D., Lynch K. (2000). Group project work and student-centred active learning: Two different experiences . Studies in Higher Education , ( 3 ), 325–345. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loughry M. L., Ohland M. W., Moore D. D. (2007). Development of a theory-based assessment of team member effectiveness . Educational and Psychological Measurement , ( 3 ), 505–524. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manktelow J., Jackson K., Edwards S., Pearcey E., Eyre E., Cook L., Moss I. (2017). Resolving team conflict: Building stronger teams by facing your differences . MindTools. Retrieved August 24, 2018, from www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_79.htm
• Mesmer-Magnus J. R.,, DeChurch L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis . Journal of Applied Psychology , ( 2 ), 535. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Michaelsen L. K., Davidson N., Major C. H. (2014). Team-based learning practices and principles in comparison with cooperative learning and problem-based learning . Journal on Excellence in College Teaching , ( 3–4 ), 57–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moog R. S., Spencer J. N. (2008). Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) , American Chemical Society Symposium Series, Vol. 994 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse J. M., Barrett M., Mayan M., Olson K., Spiers J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research . International Journal of Qualitative Methods , ( 2 ), 13–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Barriers and opportunities for 2-Year and 4-Year STEM degrees: Systemic change to support students’ diverse pathways . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council. (2015). Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oakley B., Felder R. M., Brent R., Elhajj I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams . Journal of Student Centered Learning , ( 1 ), 9–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Donnell A. (2006). The role of peers and group learning . In Alexander P., Winne P. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 781–802). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Donnell A. M. (1996). Effects of explicit incentives on scripted and unscripted cooperation . Journal of Educational Psychology , , 74–86. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Neill T. A., Hoffart G. C., McLarnon M. M., Woodley H. J., Eggermont M., Rosehart W., Brennan R. (2017). Constructive controversy and reflexivity training promotes effective conflict profiles and team functioning in student learning teams . Academy of Management Learning & Education , ( 2 ), 257–276. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pauli R., Mohiyeddini C., Bray D., Michie F., Street B. (2008). Individual differences in negative group work experiences in collaborative student learning . Educational Psychology , ( 1 ), 47–58. 10.1080/01443410701413746 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phelps E., Damon W. (1989). Problem-solving with equals—peer collaboration as a context for learning mathematics and spatial concepts . Journal of Educational Psychology , ( 4 ), 639–646. 10.1037//0022-0663.81.4.639 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Preszler R. W. (2009). Replacing lecture with peer-led workshops improves student learning . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 3 ), 182–192. 10.1187/cbe.09-01-0002 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pundak D., Rozner S. (2008). Empowering engineering college staff to adopt active learning methods . Journal of Science Education and Technology , ( 2 ), 152–163. 10.1007/s10956-007-9057-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Savadori L., Van Swol L. M., Sniezek J. A. (2001). Information sampling and confidence within groups and judge advisor systems . Communication Research , ( 6 ), 737–771. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scager K., Boonstra J., Peeters T., Vulperhorst J., Wiegant F. (2016). Collaborative learning in higher education: Evoking positive interdependence . CBE—Life Sciences Education , ( 4 ), ar69. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seymour E., Hewitt N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences . Boulder, CO: Westview. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shimazoe J., Aldrich H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding and overcoming resistance to cooperative learning . College Teaching , ( 2 ), 52–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research of cooperative learning . Educational Leadership , ( 5 ), 71–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slavin R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does groupwork work ? Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology , ( 3 ), 785–791. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomon J. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupil’s understanding of science . Studies in Science Education , , 63–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomon Y., Croft T., Lawson D. (2010). Safety in numbers: Mathematics support centres and their derivatives as social learning spaces . Studies in Higher Education , ( 4 ), 421–431. [ Google Scholar ]
• Springer L., Donovan S. S., Stanne M. E. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis . Review of Educational Research , ( 1 ), 21–51. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stefanou S. E., Hood L. F., Stefanou C. R. (2001). Feedback and change: Assessment of individual contributions within collaborative activities in the higher education classroom . Journal on Excellence in College Teaching , ( 2 ), 77–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Strong J. T., Anderson R. E. (1990). Free-riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data . Journal of Marketing Education , , 61–67. [ Google Scholar ]
• Svinicki M. D., Schallert D. L. (2016). Learning through group work in the college classroom: Evaluating the evidence from an instructional goal perspective . In Paulsen M. B. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 31 , pp. 513–538). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sweet M., Michaelsen L. K. (2007). How group dynamics research can inform the theory and practice of postsecondary small group learning . Educational Psychology Review , ( 1 ), 31–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teddlie C.,, Tashakkori A. (2003). Major issues and controveries in the use of mixed methods in the social and behvioral sciences . In Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research , 3–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tekleab A. G., Quigley N. R., Tesluk P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness . Group & Organization Management , ( 2 ), 170–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Theobald E., Eddy S., Grunspan D., Wiggins B., Crowe A. (2017). Student perception of group dynamics predicts individual performance: Comfort and equity matter . PLoS ONE , ( 7 ), e0181336. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van den Bossche P., Gijselaers W. H., Segers M., Kirschner P. A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors . Small Group Research , ( 5 ), 490–521. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van der Vegt G. S., Emans B. J., Van der Liert E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction . Personnel Psychology , ( 1 ), 51–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang S.-L., Lin S. S. (2007). The effects of group composition of self-efficacy and collective efficacy on computer-supported collaborative learning . Computers in Human Behavior , ( 5 ), 2256–2268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb N. M., Nemer K. M., Zuniga S. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance . American Educational Research Journal , ( 4 ), 943–989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb N. M., Palincsar A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom . In Calfee D. B. R. (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenzel T. J. (2007). Evaluation tools to guide students’ peer-assessment and self-assessment in group activities for the lab and classroom . Journal of Chemical Education , ( 1 ), 182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams E. (1992). Student attitudes towards approaches to learning and assessment . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , ( 1 ), 45–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Winne P. H., Jamieson-Noel D. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self reports about study tactics and achievement . Contemporary Educational Psychology , ( 4 ), 551–572. https//.org/10.1016/S0361-476x(02)00006-1 [ Google Scholar ]
• Woolley A. W., Aggarwal I., Malone T. W. (2015). Collective intelligence and group performance . Current Directions in Psychological Science , ( 6 ), 420–424. 10.1177/0963721415599543 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woolley A. W., Chabris C. F., Pentland A., Hashmi N., Malone T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups . Science , ( 6004 ), 686–688. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang B., Johnston L., Kilic G. B. (2008). Assessing the reliability of self- and peer rating in student group work . Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , ( 3 ), 329–340. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang B., Ohland M. W. (2009). How to assign individualized scores on a group project: An empirical evaluation . Applied Measurement in Education , ( 3 ), 290–308. [ Google Scholar ]

University of Bridgeport News

7 Strategies for Taking Group Projects by Storm

It’s day one of the new semester, and you see it…staring ominously from the syllabus, it lurks in eager waiting…haunting unlit corners of your lecture hall, the beast inches closer every class until one day, it strikes — sinking its teeth in. No silver tokens or wooden stakes will save you now. It’s time for mandatory group projects.

For even the most scholarly students, the mere suggestion of a group project can send shivers down the spine. These projects plague the mind with many questions. What if I get stuck with someone who does nothing? Will communication break down into a chaotic mess of emojis? And, sometimes, above all else, why do I have to do this?

So, fellow Purple Knights, let’s turn that stress into success — equip yourself with these 7 strategies to help you make the most of group assignments.

1. Acknowledge your anxiety and self-assess

Let’s take a moment to commemorate the ghosts of group projects past. Remember that paper from history class? The one on the American Revolution? Your whole team was supposed to write it, yet your group dedicated more time to scrolling through TikTok than typing. Oh, and how about that PowerPoint presentation for your accounting class? You know, the one nobody pulled their weight on, shaving a few precious points off your final grade?

Although you should never begin a group project with the attitude that failure is inevitable, being honest with yourself about any anxiety you feel helps repurpose the stress of past projects into lessons with future applicability.

So, when you see a group assignment on your syllabus, don’t panic. Instead, ask yourself a few questions, such as:

• What were some issues I encountered during previous group projects?
• How could these issues have been avoided or addressed?
• Did I give the project my all and contribute to the best of my ability?
• What did I learn about the subject I was studying?
• What did I learn about working with a group?
• More specifically, what did I learn about how I work with others?

If this self-assessment only serves to raise more questions, consider talking to your instructor or visiting the Academic Success Center . Expressing your concern about group work, and consulting with supportive and experienced professionals, can help you kickstart your collaboration with confidence.

2. Assemble your A-Team

Now that your head is in the game, it’s time to assemble the A-Team! Whether your group is self-selected or pre-assigned, first things first — for a cohesive collaboration, every teammate must cooperate.

Think of it like building a boat. Each crewmate takes on a different, albeit pivotal, role to ensure the ship will stay afloat. While some people lay floor plans and foundations, others gather materials, create sails, or complete safety assessments. Although every team member has their own purview, everyone must cooperate to achieve a common goal. If one person drops the ball, the vessel might not be seaworthy. The same goes for your group project — without joint effort, your crew may flounder in the face of challenges.

To take the helm, create team roles with the project’s guidelines in mind. Weigh the academic expectations with the skills and strengths of your teammates. Does one partner have a head for facts and figures? Group Researcher , reporting for duty! How about the group member with an eye for design? PowerPoint Coordinator may be the perfect fit!

Scenario snapshot

You and your best friend want to be in the same group for an English presentation. They’re a stand-up pal and astute problem-solver, but they often slack off on assignments. Let’s turn procrastination into collaboration. How can you help establish a healthy group dynamic without boxing out your bestie? 

3. Planning is power

Collaborating on an assignment isn’t as simple as casting roles for each group member. You will also need a plan of attack outlining what must be done (and when).

During your initial group meeting, roll up your sleeves to brainstorm ideas and generate timelines for the different components of your project. To keep all the most vital information in an accessible location, utilize project management tools like Google Docs or Trello — providing a clear, shared resource teammates can refer to when working independently.

What would you do?

It’s been two weeks, and one of your group mates still hasn’t opened the shared document outlining their role and the project schedule. They were attentive when your team first met to discuss the presentation, but you’re concerned the assignment has fallen from their radar. How can you address your concerns?

At University of Bridgeport, your personal and professional success is our priority. Learn more about our comprehensive support services today!  

4. keep up communication.

Determining guidelines for group check-ins is essential to success. Whether you’re meeting in person or virtually, it’s critical to establish when, where, and how your team will update one another.

You may even consider setting parameters for your group pow-wows. How long should each check-in last? Should one teammate have the floor during each meeting, or will everyone provide updates? Agreeing on these expectations can facilitate smooth sailing ahead.

Your four-person biology group includes a pair of close friends. Each time your team meets to discuss the project, the duo brings little to the table, filling most of the hour with fits of giggly gossip.

The last group check-in was the biggest bust yet — extending an hour longer than the agreed-upon time due to constant distractions and derailments. The following afternoon, your third partner privately messaged you, expressing the same frustrations you’re feeling. How can you and your partner constructively address this issue with your other teammates?

5. Be fair and flexible…

When collaborating with classmates, it’s crucial to remember that   is difficult. With academic, personal, and professional demands competing for space, everybody has more than one ball in the air. If someone on your team needs an extension for their part of an assignment, show grace and understanding — most people are doing their best to meet all the expectations tossed their way, and a little leniency can go a long way.

6. …but remember to set boundaries

Flexibility may be paramount, but have you ever flexed too far? If you’re always happy to go with the flow, your willingness to bend could cause your group to break. If you and your teammates are always cleaning up after one partner, burnout will ensue — potentially leading to an underwhelming final project.

If you have a teammate who isn’t pulling their weight, it’s time to set boundaries and reiterate your group’s agreed-upon expectations. If you’re uncomfortable breaching the topic, consult with your professor. Even if they expect you to start the conversation on your own, they can offer support and strategies for addressing conflicts in your group. Moreover, communicating these concerns keeps your instructor in the loop about your team’s progress.

Last month, you were randomly assigned to group for your nursing project. You were pleasantly surprised by how well it was going — at least, at first. Over the past few weeks, one of your partners has missed every meeting due to a personal problem. While they didn’t disclose the specifics, they’ve missed three deadlines and have been completely incommunicado.

With the deadline quickly approaching, you and your other teammates are starting to sweat. What could you do to help your team overcome this challenge?

7. Celebrate success

Group projects are full of peaks and valleys alike. When you hit “submit” and the game is over, take some time to acknowledge your dedicated team. Collaborative assignments can present an invaluable opportunity to connect with classmates, learn from each other, and create something truly impressive.

While the anxiety of an impending group project can be overwhelming, don’t let it overshadow the fact that these ventures can be rewarding and, dare we say, enjoyable experiences. Furthermore, in our increasingly interconnected world, nurturing your collaborative aptitude provides you with a career-ready skill — sought after by employers across all industries.

At University of Bridgeport, #UBelong. Begin your UB journey today — learn more about becoming a Purple Knight !

Create group assignments or assign to individual students

Create an assignment in Microsoft Teams for Education and assign it to individual or small groups of students in a class. Groups turn in one copy of the assignment that can be graded separately or together.

Create a new assignment

Navigate to your desired class team and select Assignments .

Select Create > Assignment .

Create a group assignment

If you chose Randomly group students: 

Enter number of groups, then select Create groups .

When everything looks good, select Done . If you decide you need more edits, select Groups of students again.

Finish adding details to your assignment, then select Assign . Note that once an assignment has been distributed to students, you can no longer edit groups.  

If you chose Manually group students:

Select Create groups .

Edit the default group name, if desired.

Select Create .

When you're done, select + New group  and repeat Steps 2 and 3 until all students have been assigned to a group.

Finish adding details to your assignment, then select Assign . Note that once an assignment has been distributed to students, you can no longer edit groups.

Assign to individual students

Select the student dropdown under Assign to . By default, All Students will be selected. Select student names or type to search for a student.

Note:  You can only assign work to individual students in one class at a time.

Once you've selected the students, finish adding details to your assignment.

Select Assign . The students you chose will be notified of their new assignment.

Create an assignment

Grade an assignment

Edit an assignment

Additional resources for educators

Ask the community

Need more help?

Want more options.

Explore subscription benefits, browse training courses, learn how to secure your device, and more.

Microsoft 365 subscription benefits

Microsoft 365 training

Microsoft security

Accessibility center

Communities help you ask and answer questions, give feedback, and hear from experts with rich knowledge.

Ask the Microsoft Community

Microsoft Tech Community

Windows Insiders

Microsoft 365 Insiders

Was this information helpful?

Thank you for your feedback.

You need to have JavaScript enabled in order to access this site.

You're signed out

Sign in to ask questions, follow content, and engage with the Community

• Canvas Instructor
• Instructor Guide

How do I assign an assignment to a course group?

• Subscribe to RSS Feed
• Printer Friendly Page
• Report Inappropriate Content

in Instructor Guide

Note: You can only embed guides in Canvas courses. Embedding on other sites is not supported.

Community Help

View our top guides and resources:.

To participate in the Instructurer Community, you need to sign up or log in:

Your session is about to expire

Clinical trial basics: intervention models in clinical trials, what are intervention models in clinical trials.

In clinical trials, intervention model refers to the general structure used for dividing study participants into groups to compare outcomes. These groups are also known as interventional or treatment arms.

What are the different types of intervention models in clinical trials?

Intervention models generally fall under four types: single-group assignments, parallel assignments, cross-over assignments, and factorial assignments.[ 1 ]

The model that is most appropriate for a trial depends on several factors, such as:

• The medical condition being tested
• The research goals of the trial
• The availability of eligible participants

Single group assignment

In single-group assignment, participants are not divided into groups at all. Instead, all participants are assigned to the therapy arm of the trial and receive the same treatment, therapy, or drug, with the same route of administration, dosage, and frequency.

An example of a single-group study is a phase 4 clinical study observing the long-term effects of a newly approved drug in all participants enrolled in the study.

Parallel assignment

Parallel assignment is the most common type of intervention model used in clinical research, wherein trial participants are divided into two or more groups, each receiving a different medical intervention throughout the duration of the study.[ 2 ] Participants are given one type of treatment, remaining in the same treatment arm for the entire study, so such studies are also known as non-crossover studies.

An example of a clinical study that uses parallel assignment is a phase III clinical trial comparing the investigational product (drug X) against the standard treatment (drug A) for the condition:

• Group 1 (experimental treatment arm) receives drug X
• Group 2 (standard treatment control arm) receives drug A

Different dosages of the same drug can also be studied in a parallel group study, for example:

• Group 1 receives 50 mg of drug X
• Group 2 receives 100 mg of drug X

Cross-over assignment

In a cross-over assignment design, researchers divide trial participants into groups that receive the same experimental treatment(s) but at different times. In other words, participants are switched from one study arm to the other at a given point in time. Sometimes also referred to as a cross-over longitudinal study, this type of intervention model attempts to reduce patient variation for more accurate results.[ 3 ] It may also have ethical benefits as all participants are given a chance to benefit from the investigational treatment, which may further encourage patient enrollment and retention.

To reduce any carryover effect from the previous treatments, studies conducted under this model usually include a washout period so the previous treatment can be fully eliminated from the participant's system. Cross-over assignments are generally used when studying chronic conditions, because symptoms are long-term so investigators have enough time to change treatments and study the effects.

A clinical trial employing a cross-over assignment might assign participants to study arms as follows:

• Group 1 receives drug X for the first 6 weeks, then drug Y for 6 weeks, with a 6-week washout period in between
• Group 2 receives drug Y for the first 6 weeks, then drug X for 6 weeks, with a 6-week washout period in between

Or, another example:

• First 2 months: Group 1 receives the experimental intervention while group 2 receives placebo
• 2 week washout period
• Last 2 months: Group 2 receives the experimental intervention while group 1 receives placebo

Factorial assignment

Factorial assignment designs are used when there is more than one intervention to be tested. Trial participants are divided into groups or arms receiving different combinations of two or more interventions/drugs.

The simplest factorial design is a so-called 2x2 factorial assignment, in which two drugs, X and Y, might be tested in four study groups/arms as follows:

• Group 1 receives drug X and drug Y together
• Group 2 receives drug X and placebo (control)
• Group 3 receives drug Y and placebo (control)
• Group 4 receives two placebos

The appeal of such a design is that it is essentially similar to conducting two parallel group studies (drug X versus placebo and drug Y versus placebo) on the same study population, allowing comparison of the safety and/or efficacy of drug X versus drug Y. Further, potential interaction (synergy or antagonism) between the two interventions might be elucidated, although this is not the goal of such a study. A general assumption underlying such designs is that the two interventions do not interact with one another, in which case the statistical power of such a study design is greater than that of a multi-arm parallel group trial.[ 4 ] However, it is often difficult to be sure that there was no interaction, which can lead to difficulty in interpreting results.

Other Trials to Consider

Arm 1: 3D printed model

Intermittent theta burst stimulation, breast mri screening for high risk patients, single arm longitudinal assessment, 3d model of heart, cbt (surgerypal), standard of care + cbt4cbt+ rc, popular categories.

Tymlos Clinical Trials

Paid Clinical Trials in Kansas City, MO

Paid Clinical Trials in Dallas, TX

Paid Clinical Trials in Tucson, AZ

Paid Clinical Trials in Spokane, WA

Paid Clinical Trials in Glendale, AZ

Paid Clinical Trials in Madison, WI

Paid Clinical Trials in New Mexico

Pheochromocytoma Clinical Trials 2023

Adrenal Insufficiency Clinical Trials 2023

Popular guides.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 22 April 2024

Oral health

Cannabidiol - an effective analgesic for toothache?

• Siofra Murphy   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0003-2081-3017 1 &
• Ellis Hayes 1  

Evidence-Based Dentistry ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Oral analgesics

This study is a randomised, placebo-controlled, triple-arm, phase IIA clinical trial with double masking which investigates the effectiveness and safety of Cannabidiol (CBD) as an analgesic for acute dental pain. The intervention drug, Epidiolex is an FDA-approved CBD oral solution (100 mg/ml) derived from the cannabis plant. The psychoactive ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is not included. The maximum recommended daily dose of Epidiolex is 20 mg/kg. 64 patients with moderate-severe odontogenic pain participated in the study and REDCap software was utilised to randomly assign participants into groups: CBD10 (10 mg/kg), CBD20 (20 mg/kg) and placebo.

A single dose of the respective oral solution was administered, and participants monitored for 3 h. Patients remained blinded to group assignment, as did the outcome assessor. The provider was not blinded. The primary outcome measure was

VAS (visual analogue scale) pain difference, compared to baseline and recorded at 7 subsequent marked times following administration (15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180 min). Additional outcome measures were also recorded: changes in bite force, pain intensity differences, the onset of significant pain relief, the maximum pain relief, psychoactive effects, mood changes and adverse events.

Case selection

40 female and 21 male patients with moderate-severe odontogenic pain (defined as ≥30 on a 100 mm VAS) with a diagnosis of irreversible pulpitis or pulp necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis were included. Participation required a negative test for recent drug and alcohol use, a negative pregnancy test and no use of analgesics within 6 h of the trial. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, hepatic impairment, recreational cannabis users and patients taking CBD metabolising drugs were excluded along with those with an ASA classification above III. Patient characteristics recorded included: age, gender, race, tooth type affected, weight and BMI.

Data analysis

Mixed model analysis was used to compare numerical variables among the cohorts at the marked time intervals. VAS, bite force, Bowdle and Bond/Lader questionnaires were recorded. Inter-group analysis was completed using parametric and non-parametric post-hoc tests, including Holm–Bonferroni adjustment and the Shapiro–Wilk test, to evaluate data normality. NNTs were calculated for both CBD doses- the number of patients needing treatment before one patient experiences a minimum of 50% pain relief. X² tests were used to analyse categorical variables: pain intensity and adverse events. JMP software was used for the statistical analysis.

64 participants had originally enroled in the study, but three were excluded from data analysis due to ‘unrealistic results’, reporting complete pain relief within the first 15 min. 20 participants were given CBD10, 20 were given CBD20 and 21 placebo. 68% of the participants were Hispanic/Latino whilst 11% were white. The average age was 44 +/− 13.7. There was equal distribution of age, sex, race, tooth type, weight and body mass index ( p  > 0.05). No subject required rescue pain relief during the 3-h observation period. Compared to baseline VAS, significant pain relief was seen 30 min after drug administration for CBD10, versus after 15 min for CBD20 ( p  < 0.05). Pain reduction reached 50% at 60 min for CBD10 and at 120 min for CBD20. Both reported maximum pain reduction of 73% of baseline at 180 min. 33% pain reduction from baseline was seen in the placebo group, with a median VAS pain of 67% at 180 min. 45.4% of CBD10 and 46.6% of CBD20 required pain relief after 1–6 h, versus 37.5% of placebo ( p  > 0.05). Bite force increase was seen in both CBD10 and CBD20 groups at 90 and 180 min, versus no significant differences between time points in the placebo group. On assessing pain intensity, pain reduction was significantly associated with increasing time in the CBD groups ( p  < 0.001), versus no significant association with the placebo group ( p  = 0.0521). No statistically significant differences were seen between and within the groups for Bowdle or Bond/Lader questions ( p  > 0.05). In the 3 h observation period, CBD10 experienced 14 times more sedation symptoms versus placebo ( p  < 0.05), whilst CBD20 experienced this 8 times more ( p  < 0.05). Within the 3 h, CBD20 were 10-fold more likely to have diarrhoea and abdominal pain ( p  < 0.05), with some experiencing pain beyond the 3 h but resolving within the day.

Conclusions

Based on this randomised clinical trial, pure CBD drug Epidiolex demonstrates effective analgesia against acute toothache.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 4 print issues and online access

251,40 € per year

only 62,85 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Freeman TP, Hindocha C, Green SF, Bloomfield MAP. Medicinal use of cannabis based products and cannabinoids. BMJ. 2019;365:l1141. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1141 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Cannabis legislation in Europe: an overview. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2018.

NICE. Cannabis-based medicinal products. 2019. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng144/resources/cannabisbased-medicinal-products-pdf-66141779817157 . Accessed March 2024.

O´Connor R, Landes D, Harris R. Trends and inequalities in realised access to NHS primary care dental services in England before, during and throughout recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Br Dent J. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-023-6032-1 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Crosshouse, Kilmarnock Rd, Crosshouse, Kilmarnock, KA2 0BE, Scotland

Siofra Murphy & Ellis Hayes

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siofra Murphy .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Murphy, S., Hayes, E. Cannabidiol - an effective analgesic for toothache?. Evid Based Dent (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01007-5

Download citation

Received : 02 April 2024

Accepted : 11 April 2024

Published : 22 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01007-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

FNCE90016 2023S2 Group Assignment

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Gender pay gap in U.S. hasn’t changed much in two decades

The gender gap in pay has remained relatively stable in the United States over the past 20 years or so. In 2022, women earned an average of 82% of what men earned, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of median hourly earnings of both full- and part-time workers. These results are similar to where the pay gap stood in 2002, when women earned 80% as much as men.

As has long been the case, the wage gap is smaller for workers ages 25 to 34 than for all workers 16 and older. In 2022, women ages 25 to 34 earned an average of 92 cents for every dollar earned by a man in the same age group – an 8-cent gap. By comparison, the gender pay gap among workers of all ages that year was 18 cents.

While the gender pay gap has not changed much in the last two decades, it has narrowed considerably when looking at the longer term, both among all workers ages 16 and older and among those ages 25 to 34. The estimated 18-cent gender pay gap among all workers in 2022 was down from 35 cents in 1982. And the 8-cent gap among workers ages 25 to 34 in 2022 was down from a 26-cent gap four decades earlier.

The gender pay gap measures the difference in median hourly earnings between men and women who work full or part time in the United States. Pew Research Center’s estimate of the pay gap is based on an analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) monthly outgoing rotation group files ( IPUMS ) from January 1982 to December 2022, combined to create annual files. To understand how we calculate the gender pay gap, read our 2013 post, “How Pew Research Center measured the gender pay gap.”

The COVID-19 outbreak affected data collection efforts by the U.S. government in its surveys, especially in 2020 and 2021, limiting in-person data collection and affecting response rates. It is possible that some measures of economic outcomes and how they vary across demographic groups are affected by these changes in data collection.

In addition to findings about the gender wage gap, this analysis includes information from a Pew Research Center survey about the perceived reasons for the pay gap, as well as the pressures and career goals of U.S. men and women. The survey was conducted among 5,098 adults and includes a subset of questions asked only for 2,048 adults who are employed part time or full time, from Oct. 10-16, 2022. Everyone who took part is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used in this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

The  U.S. Census Bureau has also analyzed the gender pay gap, though its analysis looks only at full-time workers (as opposed to full- and part-time workers). In 2021, full-time, year-round working women earned 84% of what their male counterparts earned, on average, according to the Census Bureau’s most recent analysis.

Much of the gender pay gap has been explained by measurable factors such as educational attainment, occupational segregation and work experience. The narrowing of the gap over the long term is attributable in large part to gains women have made in each of these dimensions.

Related: The Enduring Grip of the Gender Pay Gap

Even though women have increased their presence in higher-paying jobs traditionally dominated by men, such as professional and managerial positions, women as a whole continue to be overrepresented in lower-paying occupations relative to their share of the workforce. This may contribute to gender differences in pay.

Other factors that are difficult to measure, including gender discrimination, may also contribute to the ongoing wage discrepancy.

Perceived reasons for the gender wage gap

When asked about the factors that may play a role in the gender wage gap, half of U.S. adults point to women being treated differently by employers as a major reason, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in October 2022. Smaller shares point to women making different choices about how to balance work and family (42%) and working in jobs that pay less (34%).

There are some notable differences between men and women in views of what’s behind the gender wage gap. Women are much more likely than men (61% vs. 37%) to say a major reason for the gap is that employers treat women differently. And while 45% of women say a major factor is that women make different choices about how to balance work and family, men are slightly less likely to hold that view (40% say this).

Parents with children younger than 18 in the household are more likely than those who don’t have young kids at home (48% vs. 40%) to say a major reason for the pay gap is the choices that women make about how to balance family and work. On this question, differences by parental status are evident among both men and women.

Views about reasons for the gender wage gap also differ by party. About two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (68%) say a major factor behind wage differences is that employers treat women differently, but far fewer Republicans and Republican leaners (30%) say the same. Conversely, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say women’s choices about how to balance family and work (50% vs. 36%) and their tendency to work in jobs that pay less (39% vs. 30%) are major reasons why women earn less than men.

Democratic and Republican women are more likely than their male counterparts in the same party to say a major reason for the gender wage gap is that employers treat women differently. About three-quarters of Democratic women (76%) say this, compared with 59% of Democratic men. And while 43% of Republican women say unequal treatment by employers is a major reason for the gender wage gap, just 18% of GOP men share that view.

Pressures facing working women and men

Family caregiving responsibilities bring different pressures for working women and men, and research has shown that being a mother can reduce women’s earnings , while fatherhood can increase men’s earnings .

Employed women and men are about equally likely to say they feel a great deal of pressure to support their family financially and to be successful in their jobs and careers, according to the Center’s October survey. But women, and particularly working mothers, are more likely than men to say they feel a great deal of pressure to focus on responsibilities at home.

About half of employed women (48%) report feeling a great deal of pressure to focus on their responsibilities at home, compared with 35% of employed men. Among working mothers with children younger than 18 in the household, two-thirds (67%) say the same, compared with 45% of working dads.

When it comes to supporting their family financially, similar shares of working moms and dads (57% vs. 62%) report they feel a great deal of pressure, but this is driven mainly by the large share of unmarried working mothers who say they feel a great deal of pressure in this regard (77%). Among those who are married, working dads are far more likely than working moms (60% vs. 43%) to say they feel a great deal of pressure to support their family financially. (There were not enough unmarried working fathers in the sample to analyze separately.)

About four-in-ten working parents say they feel a great deal of pressure to be successful at their job or career. These findings don’t differ by gender.

Gender differences in job roles, aspirations

Overall, a quarter of employed U.S. adults say they are currently the boss or one of the top managers where they work, according to the Center’s survey. Another 33% say they are not currently the boss but would like to be in the future, while 41% are not and do not aspire to be the boss or one of the top managers.

Men are more likely than women to be a boss or a top manager where they work (28% vs. 21%). This is especially the case among employed fathers, 35% of whom say they are the boss or one of the top managers where they work. (The varying attitudes between fathers and men without children at least partly reflect differences in marital status and educational attainment between the two groups.)

In addition to being less likely than men to say they are currently the boss or a top manager at work, women are also more likely to say they wouldn’t want to be in this type of position in the future. More than four-in-ten employed women (46%) say this, compared with 37% of men. Similar shares of men (35%) and women (31%) say they are not currently the boss but would like to be one day. These patterns are similar among parents.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on March 22, 2019. Anna Brown and former Pew Research Center writer/editor Amanda Barroso contributed to an earlier version of this analysis. Here are the questions used in this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

What is the gender wage gap in your metropolitan area? Find out with our pay gap calculator

• Gender & Work
• Gender Equality & Discrimination
• Gender Pay Gap
• Gender Roles

Women have gained ground in the nation’s highest-paying occupations, but still lag behind men

Diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace, the enduring grip of the gender pay gap, more than twice as many americans support than oppose the #metoo movement, women now outnumber men in the u.s. college-educated labor force, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Navigation Menu

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests..., provide feedback.

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly.

To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation .

• Notifications

randinimendis/paf-assignment-2024-jun_we_158_team

Folders and files, repository files navigation, paf-assignment-2024-jun_we_158_team.

Please go under edit and edit this file as needed for your project

Team Name -

Project group - jun_we_158_team, group leader - it21228094 - mendis a.r.p. (randinimendis), member 2 - it21225024 - bhagya p.s (it21225024), member 3 - it21215292 - madhusanka j.a.a. (ashen0909), member 4 - it21231100 - sandaruwan w.m.i.m. (imalms), brief description of your solution -.

Note - The student's github account should be given in brackets e.g. (asiriRepos), this ideally should be your student id