Collaborative Work in Middle Schools:
NO Hitchhiking in My Class
Genell Hooper Harris, Ph.D.
Southern
April 2006
(paper pending, Middle Ground, do not cite or distribute)
Teachers sometimes avoid group (collaborative) work for fear that students will complain about the lack of a sufficient reward for their individual efforts. The complaint stems from past experiences where group work (collaborative work – CW) yielded the same grade for everyone whether the student carried the full responsibility for project completion or marginally participated in the process. By 6th grade, many students have either discovered how to stay “under the radar” with group responsibilities or have learned that if they want an A, they must do the bulk of the work themselves. In their article on group projects, Charles Brooks and Janice Ammons (2003) refer to the process of doing minimal work in a group assignment as free riding. Because of this and the assessment inequities of group work (CW), some teachers have “thrown the baby out with the bathwater,” and no longer use it. (In this paper collaborative work, group work and cooperative learning are synonymous and refer to a group of individuals working toward a common goal.)
CW is nothing new in education, but the assessment aspect of CW and free riding has become a “sticking point” for not only students, but many teachers. This paper discusses how to make CW assessment equitable and effective for teachers and students.
Why is CW so Important?
Anthony Carnevale’s (2002) article in the American School Board Journal makes a case that in many professions, employers want people who can work and problem solve collaboratively. Learning to work together for a common outcome prepares students for a work world where success can hinge on their collaborative skills. To gain these skills, students need the opportunity to practice and implement them prior to employment. Middle school teachers can provide these experiences that challenge and equip students for the types of collaborative roles found in today’s workforce. Beyond enhancing employment, CW has other benefits. David and Roger Johnson (1999) have published extensively on cooperative learning and contend that cooperative work is more effective than competitive work, leads to higher-level reasoning ability, improves retention rates, promotes greater intrinsic motivation to learn, improves self confidence, and builds interpersonal and communication skills. So how can one provide CW experiences that students find meaningful and fair?
Making the Process Fair…No Free Riders Allowed
One key to a successful CW project is to be certain that student groups are equitably assessed. For the learner, this means offering evaluation procedures that reflect their individual efforts, as well as that of the group. Some teachers worry that when students do the peer assessments and group scoring, the outcome is artificially inflated grades. Deborah Kaufman and Richard Felder (2000) in their article on cooperative teams, state that the potential was there but in their study, found group ratings were not inflated and highly correlated with students’ final course grades. Sometimes CW students, who do little or no work, receive the same score as the group. In their article on free riding, Charles Brooks and Janice Ammons (2003), contend that early and multiple peer assessments can reduce the tendency to hitchhike. These assessments ensure that students are less likely to procrastinate and depend on others, if done early and more than once.
Although there are a number of ways to do CW, in the middle school there are three essential components that contribute to equitable assessment. Peer scoring gives students a sense of ownership and efficacy towards the project, a collective group score holds the group to a common goal, and an individual score requires each student to carry his/her weight. The following rubrics are examples of the three components, in addition to a rubric that provides a total score.
Peer Score: (each team member scores all other members)
Name (name of person doing the score):________ (Do one rubric for EACH group member)
Member being scored:________________________________
_____ Present at meetings & assisted with the planning (up to _pts)
_____ Carried through on assigned task(s) (up to _pts)
_____ Was a valued member of the group (up to _pts)
Total _____
Collective Group Score: (instructor scored)
NAMES of group members: ____________________________________________________
Topic/Title of presentation:_____________________________________________________
_____topic factually and fully covered (up to _pts)
_____group was prepared and convincing (up
to _pts)
Total_____
Instructor Comments:
Individual Score: (student’s individual paper and oral presentation scored by instructor):
Student Name:_______________________________
_______correct
grammar, writing mechanics and spelling on his/her handout (up to _pts)
_______enthusiasm
during presentation (up to _pts)
_______preparedness
in presentation (up to _pts)
_______2
or more references sited (up to _pts)
Instructor Comments: Total
= _____
Total Points:
Student Name:___________________________________________
____Individual score from teacher (up to _pts)
____Peer assessment (up to _pts)
____Group score (up to _pts)
Total = _____
Instructor’s Comments regarding the total score:
Basic Advice for Using the Rubrics
Every teacher’s classroom is unique and
modifications need to be done. On the
day of the presentations, the teacher brings a labeled file folder for each
group, along with copies of the rubrics.
Give each student the Peer Scoring rubric to score each member in their
group. Example: if a group has 5, give
each student 4 rubrics (students do not score themselves). Students should score in private and submit
to the teacher immediately following
the presentation. The peer rubric, if
done midway into the assignment, reduces free riding and provides multiple peer
scoring. Just prior to each group’s presentation, give
one member of each group the Collective group scoring rubric and ask that
person to fill in each member’s name, title of presentation and then return to
the instructor. At the closure of the
presentation, assign a group score for the project/presentation. Take notes on
individuals during the presentation.
This is used along with the student’s individual paper or product to
assign the individual score. 
Collect all individual work. Place each group’s rubrics and papers together
in a file folder. The teacher examines
each group’s peer assessments for any significant point differences on a
student. If differences are found, consider
possibilities, such as a conflict between two students or unclear expectations,
and decide if the low score from one student should be disregarded or averaged
with the other scores. After the dust has cleared and the
individual papers/products assessed, the task is almost complete. Total each student’s scores from each of the
rubrics and place it on the Total Points rubric. Return only the Total Points
rubric and individual work to the students and keep the other rubrics in case
there are scoring questions.
Conclusion
Effective assessment methods bring clarity and equality to the CW assessment process, while reducing free riding. The more students understand the expectations and the ultimate outcomes, the more receptive they will be. Keeping students in the dark or mass assessing them is not effective.
- Hold class discussions on the purpose of group work and assessment methods.
- Make project expectations and details clear to all students. Give each student a copy of the grading rubrics and discuss these prior to the project.
- Peer assess midway rather than at the end when little can be done to help the group or the free rider.
When teachers use these steps, students understand the reasons for group work and then recognize there can and will be equity in assessment. In this class, notice is given that free riders must hitchhike on someone else’s time!
References
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, 78(5), 268-272.
Carnevale, A.P. (2002). Preparing for the future. American School Board Journal, 189(7), 26-29.
Harris, G.H. (2004). Group work in
college courses: Accountability for all
members! Teaching for Success, 16, 3-5 from http://www.teachingforsuccess.com/
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1999).
What makes cooperative learning
work?
Johnson D.W. & Johnson R.T. (1993). What we know about cooperative learning at the college level. Cooperative Learning, 3(3), 17-18.
Kaufman, D.B. & Felder, R.M. (2000). Accounting for individual effort in cooperative teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(2), 133-140.
Dr. Genell Hooper Harris, is an Associate Professor of
Education, Southern Utah University,