![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Professors often give members of a group project the same grade or they use peer evaluations to provide individualized grades. Unfortunately, both these methods have shortcomings. This article describes the segment manager method (SMM), a method for assigning individualized grades on the group project that does not rely on peer evaluations. A quasi-experiment is described where marketing research students are graded in groups either with peer evaluations (the control group) or with the SMM (the treatment group). Students participating in the quasi-experiment were more likely to prefer the SMM over the approach that uses peer evaluations. Moreover, when the SMM is compared with the peer evaluations approach, the SMM appears to be more likely to generate individualized grades on the group project that reflect each student’s academic ability, to deter social loafing, to increase scores on the group project, and to increase scores on an exam that is heavily loaded with project material. Recommendations for future users of the SMM are offered.
References
Section:
|
Abernethy, A. M., Lett, W. L.. (2005). You are fired! A method to control and sanction free riding in group assignments. Marketing Education Review, 15(1), 47-54. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Aggarwal, P., O’Brien, C. L. (2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 255-264. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Alsop, R. (2004, September 22). How to get hired. The Wall Street Journal, p. R8. Google Scholar | |
|
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business . (2011). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards-2011-revised-jan2011-final.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Bacon, D. R. (2005). The effect of group projects on content-related learning. Journal of Management Education, 29, 248-267. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
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, 23, 467-488. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Batra, M. M., Walvoord, B. E., Krishnan, K. S. (1997). Effective pedagogy for student-team projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 19(2), 26-42. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Beatty, J. R., Haas, R. W., Sciglimpaglia, D. (1996). Using peer evaluations to assess individual performances in group class projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 18(2), 17-27. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Becker, D., Dwyer, M. (1998). The impact of student verbal/visual learning style preference on implementing groupware in the classroom. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(2), 61-69. Google Scholar | |
|
Brandyberry, A. A., Bakke, S. A. (2006). Mitigating negative behaviors in student project teams: An information technology solution. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17, 195-209. 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, 78, 268-272. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Cederblom, D., Lounsbury, J. W. (1980). An investigation of user acceptance of peer evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 33, 567-579. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
DeNisi, A. S., Randolph, W. A., Blencoe, A. G. (1983). Potential problems with peer ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 457-464. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Dixon, A. L., Gassenheimer, J. B., Barr, T. F. (2003). Identifying the lone wolf: A team perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23, 205-219. Google Scholar | |
|
Dommeyer, C. J. (2007). Using the diary method to deal with social loafers on the group project: Its effects on peer evaluations, group behavior, and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 175-188. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Farh, J.-L. L., Cannella, A. A., Bedeian, A. G. (1991). The impact of purpose on rating quality and user acceptance. Group & Organization Studies, 16, 367-386. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Feichtner, S. B., Davis, E. A. (1984). Why some groups fail: A survey of students’ experiences with learning groups. Journal of Management Education, 9(4), 58-73. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Fellenz, M. R. (2006). Toward fairness in assessing student groupwork: A protocol for peer evaluation of individual contributions. Journal of Management Education, 30, 570-591. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Fisher, A. (2007, April 30). The trouble with MBAs. Fortune, 155(8), 49-50. Google Scholar | |
|
Forman, J., Katsky, P. (1986). The group report: A problem in small group or writing processes? Journal of Business Communication, 23, 23-35. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Ghorpa, J., Lackritz, J. R. (2001). Peer evaluation in the classroom: A check for sex and race/ethnicity effects. Journal of Education for Business, 5, 274-281. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Haas, A. L., Haas, R. W., Wotruba, T. R. (1998). The use of self-ratings and peer ratings to evaluate performances of student group members. Journal of Marketing Education, 20, 200-209. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Harkins, S. G., Petty, R. E. (1982). The effect of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1214-1229. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Herman, E. D., Keldsen, S. Z., Miller, J. G. (2001). States of development in collaborative learning: Administrative perspectives on teaming in MBA programs. Boston, MA: Boston University School of Management Center for Team Learning. Google Scholar | |
|
Hernandez, S. A. (2002). Team learning in a marketing principles course: Cooperative structures that facilitate active learning and higher level thinking. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 73-85. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Hindle, B. P. (1993). The “Project”: Putting student-controlled, small-group work and transferrable skills at the core of a geography course. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 17, 11-20. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Hollander, E. P., Webb, W. B. (1955). Leadership, followership, and friendship: An analysis of peer nominations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 163-167. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Holzbach, R. L. (1978). Rater bias in performance ratings: Supervisor, self, and peer ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 579-588. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Ingham, A. G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., Peckham, V. (1974). The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 371-384. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Johnson, C. B., Smith, F. I. (1997). Assessment of a complex peer evaluation instrument for team learning and group processes. Accounting Education: A Journal of Theory, Practice, and Research, 2(1), 21-41. Google Scholar | |
|
Joyce, W. B. (1999). On the free-rider problem in cooperative learning. Journal of Education for Business, 74, 271-274. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Kagan, S. (1995). Group grades miss the mark. Educational Leadership, 52(8), 68-71. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Kane, J. S., Lawler, E. E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 555-586. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Kerr, N. L., Bruun, S. E. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 224-231. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Koeck, R., Guthrie, G. M. (1975). Reciprocity in impression formation. Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 31-41. Google Scholar | |
|
Latane, B., Williams, K. D., Harkins, S. G. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Lejk, M., Wyvill, M. (1996). A survey of methods of deriving individual grades from group assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 267-280. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Lejk, M., Wyvill, M. (2001). The effect of the inclusion of self-assessment with peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A quantitative study of secret and agreed assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 551-561. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
LeRosen, R. G. (1976). Group projects, peer rating scales: Management education tools. Journal of Business Education, 51, 317-318. Google Scholar | |
|
Love, K. G. (1981). Comparison of peer assessment methods: Reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user reaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 451-457. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Magin, D. (2001). Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 53-63. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
May, G. L. (2008). The effect of rater training on reducing social style bias in peer evaluation. Business Communication Quarterly, 71, 297-313. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
McCorkle, D. E., Reardon, J., Alexander, J. F., Kling, N. D., Harris, R. C., Iyer, R. V. (1999). Undergraduate marketing students, group projects, and teamwork: The good, the bad, and the ugly? Journal of Marketing Education, 21, 106-117. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
McLaughlin, M., Fennick, R. (1987). Collaborative writing student interaction and response. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 14, 214-216. Google Scholar | |
|
Okoli, C., Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42, 15-29. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Park, R. C., Kristol, D. S. (1976). Student peer evaluations. Journal of Chemical Education, 53, 177-178. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Petty, R. E., Harkins, S. G., Williams, K. D., Latane, B. (1977). The effects of group size on cognitive effort and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 579-582. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Pfaff, E., Huddleston, P. (2003). Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork? Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 37-45. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Saavedra, R., Kwun, S. K. (1993). Peer evaluation in self-managing work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 450-462. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Sharp, S. (2006). Deriving individual student marks from a tutor’s assessment of group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 329-343. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Sinclair, K. E. (1997). Workforce competencies of college graduates. In O’Neil, H. F. (Ed.), Workforce readiness: Competencies and assessment (pp. 103-120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar | |
|
Slavin, R. E. (1988). Cooperative learning and student achievement. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 31-33. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Strong, J. T., Anderson, R. E. (1990). Free-riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data. Journal of Marketing Education, 12(2), 61-67. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Tarricone, P., Luca, J. (2002). Employees, teamwork, and social independence: A formula for successful business? Team Performance Management, 8, 54-59. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Thacker, R. A., Yost, C. A. (2002). Training students to become effective workplace team leaders. Team Performance Management, 8, 89-95. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Tu, Y., Lu, M. (2005). Peer-and self assessment to reveal the ranking of each individual’s contribution to a group project. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16, 197-205. Google Scholar | |
|
Tyagi, P. K. (2008). Social loafing behavior in marketing research projects (Working Paper). San Diego: California State University at San Diego. Google Scholar | |
|
Vance, E. (2007, February 2). College graduates lack key skills, report says. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(22), A30. Google Scholar | |
|
Ward, M. A. (2005). An empirical assessment of peer review reliability: The ipsitive instrument paradox. Journal of Education for Business, 81, 35-40. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Weldon, E., Gargano, G. M. (1988). Cognitive loafing: The effects of accountability and shared responsibility on cognitive effort. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 159-171. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Wilcoxson, L. E. (2006). “It’s not fair!”: Assessing the dynamics and resourcing of teamwork. Journal of Management Education, 30, 798-808. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Williams, D. L., Beard, J. D., Rymer, J. (1991). Team projects: Achieving their full potential. Journal of Marketing Education, 13(2), 45-53. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
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, 33, 329-340. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Zhang, B., Ohland, M. W. (2009). How to assign individualized scores on a group project: An empirical evaluation. Applied Measurement in Education, 22, 290-308. Google Scholar | Crossref |
