Durham E-Theses An exploration of the eects of group summative assessment marking on higher education students' overall marks ALMOND, RICHARD,JAMES How to cite: ALMOND, RICHARD,JAMES (2013) An exploration of the eects of group summative assessment marking on higher education students' overall marks, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/7293/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 An exploration of the effects of group summative assessment marking on higher education students’ overall marks Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Education, University of Durham Richard James Almond, 2012. Abstract Groupwork and group summative assessment (GSA) are important learning, teaching and assessment methods used by many educational institutions, not just universities. The differences between the marks that HEI students were awarded for their own independent individual summative assessment (IISA) work and their GSA marks were explored. The study topic presented itself while the author was contemplating studying for a first degree, when it became apparent that group working and group summative assessment was included in summative assessment methods used in the chosen programme. Three data sources were from UK undergraduates and graduates, and one was from Australian PG students. Module marks data were collected from over 4000 HE students. They were divided into eighteen faculty/year data sets from four HEI sources. A systematic difference was found between the distributions of GSA and IISA marks, supporting Lejk et al. (1999). Lower IISA ability students scored higher in GSA modules than in IISA modules. Higher IISA ability students scored lower in GSA modules. In addition, the mean GSA mark was higher than the mean IISA mark. The standard deviation of the GSA marks was lower than the SD of the IISA marks. Both of these findings support Downie (2001). The relationship was found to vary between the data sets, modules, assessment items and especially between faculties. The results and conclusions from this study will empower stakeholders, enabling them to be better informed in their choice of first-degree study programmes. They will also allow the use and impact of GSA to be more transparent and better understood, leading to further research and improvement in practice. RJA Page 2 of 231 Table of contents LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. 7 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................... 8 ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY ................................................................................................ 9 DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................ 10 STATEMENT OF COPYRIGHT ........................................................................................................ 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER 1. STUDY INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 11 1.1 THE RESEARCH PROBLEM .................................................................................................. 11 1.2 GENESIS ........................................................................................................................... 13 1.3 THESIS ORGANISATION ...................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................. 17 2.1 PRINCIPAL STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................................ 21 2.2 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE AND VALUE NEUTRALITY........................................................... 22 2.3 WHAT IS A FIRST-DEGREE? ................................................................................................ 24 2.3.1 Andragogy - not pedagogy .......................................................................................... 27 2.4 STUDY DEFINITION OF THE TERMS PROGRAMME AND MODULE .............................................. 28 2.5 STUDY DEFINITIONS OF ABILITY, ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION ........................................... 28 2.6 SOME PROBLEMS WITH SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 29 2.6.1 Slide-effect, contrast-effect and gender bias ............................................................... 30 2.7 WHY STUDY THE QUANTITATIVE IMPACT OF GSA MARKING? ................................................ 31 2.7.1 Researcher work, academic study and research background .................................... 33 2.7.2 It is an underreported area of educational research ................................................... 37 2.7.3 GSA fairness ............................................................................................................... 38 2.7.4 Stakeholder resource and research thread ................................................................. 41 2.7.5 Study for its own sake ................................................................................................. 42 2.8 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK CHAPTER SUMMARY .................................................................. 42 CHAPTER 3. REVIEW OF GENERAL BACKGROUND LITERATURE ...................................... 44 3.1 GROUP AND TEAM: DEFINITION AND DIFFERENCE ................................................................. 46 3.2 GROUPWORK, GROUP WORK, GROUP AND PEER LEARNING, AND GROUP ASSESSMENT .......... 49 3.2.1 Groupwork and group work ......................................................................................... 49 3.2.2 Group and peer learning ............................................................................................. 50 3.2.3 Group and peer assessment ....................................................................................... 50 3.3 PRACTISE EFFECT ............................................................................................................. 51 3.4 THE UBIQUITOUS NATURE OF GROUP WORK AND GSA IN HIGHER EDUCATION ....................... 51 3.5 RATIONALE FOR GSA PRACTICE ......................................................................................... 52 3.5.1 It is what employers want ............................................................................................ 53 3.5.2 It teaches generic group working skills ....................................................................... 54 3.5.3 It is an effective learning and teaching tool ................................................................. 56 3.5.4 It allows more meaningful and realistic projects .......................................................... 57 3.5.5 Resources may be used more efficiently .................................................................... 58 3.6 HOW STUDENT GSA GROUPS ARE FORMED ........................................................................ 60 3.6.1 Group membership assignment methods ................................................................... 60 3.6.1.1 Self-selection ........................................................................................................................ 60 3.6.1.2 Random assignment ............................................................................................................. 61 3.6.1.3 Teacher assignment ............................................................................................................. 62 3.6.2 Group size ................................................................................................................... 62 3.6.3 Learning styles ............................................................................................................ 63 3.6.3.1 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ................................................................................................. 65 3.6.3.2 Belbin management types .................................................................................................... 66 3.6.3.3 Heterogeneous versus homogeneous personality groups .................................................... 66 3.7 THE IMPACT OF GSA ON STUDENT MARKS .......................................................................... 67 3.8 AN UNVERIFIED CLAIM ........................................................................................................ 68 3.9 DISADVANTAGES OF GSA .................................................................................................