Group assessments

Dr John Mahoney
Assessment and Feedback
10
 m
UKPSF Dimensions

Assess and give feedback to learners

Appropriate methods for teaching, learning and assessing in the subject area in the subject area and at the level of the academic programme

What can I do?

Impact
3
Quality
3
  • Engage students in well-designed group assessments
  • Include individual assessment within group work to improve fairness and motivation
  • There's a lot that can go wrong in group assessments, so tread carefully

What is this about?

Group work assessment refers to how we evaluate students when they work together on shared tasks. It includes assessing both the final product and the way the group worked together. This can involve grading the group as a whole or assessing each student's individual contribution. In higher education, it's common to use peer assessment to gauge who did what, but it's tricky to get right.

What's the evidence say?

Group work improves students' ability to transfer knowledge to new situations (effect size = 0.30) ➕➕➕ (Pai et al., 2015). Small groups using technology also perform better than individuals, especially on group tasks (effect size = 0.31) ➕➕➕ (Lou et al., 2001). Peer assessment is widely used and perceived as fair by many students, though some find it stressful or biased. Group work assessment can improve motivation and reduce anxiety when implemented well, especially when students can revise and be reassessed individually (Forsell et al., 2019).

Structured methods like scripts, roles, and task specialisation tend to enhance learning. Students benefit most when both group goals and individual accountability are in place ➕➕➕ (Pai et al., 2015).

When doesn’t group work work?

While group work often supports learning, several conditions can reduce its effectiveness or even result in negative outcomes:

  1. When group assessment feels unfair
    Forsell et al. (2019) found that students perceive group-based grading as unfair when contributions are unequal. This can reduce motivation and increase stress, especially when group marks are shared equally regardless of effort.
  2. When peer assessment is perceived as biased or stressful
    Peer assessment can improve accountability but also introduces tension. Forsell et al. (2019) noted that students worry about fairness and bias, especially when peer relationships or discomfort affect scoring reliability.
  3. In low-structure or poorly facilitated settings
    Lou et al. (2001) observed that unstructured group learning, without roles or shared goals, tends to produce weaker outcomes. Without guidance, some students dominate while others disengage.
  4. When group tasks are overly simple or closed
    Cohen (1994, cited in Lou et al., 2001) found that group work is more beneficial for open-ended tasks that encourage discussion and multiple perspectives. Closed tasks with one correct answer reduce the value of collaboration.
  5. When group conflict or power imbalances go unaddressed
    Poor group dynamics—such as dominant personalities or unresolved tension—can reduce participation and learning. Lou et al. (2001) suggest that structured support and role assignment can mitigate these risks.

What's the underlying theory?

There are several underlying theories that describe why group assessments may hinder learning. One theory is that group assessments can lead to social loafing, which is the phenomenon of individuals exerting less effort when they are part of a group compared to when they are working alone. This can happen because individuals may feel that their contributions to the group are not being fully recognised or that their efforts are being overshadowed by those of the other group members. Another theory is that group assessments can create a dependency on others, which can lead to a lack of individual accountability and a decrease in motivation to learn. In addition, group assessments may also lead to conflicts or power dynamics within the group, which can disrupt the learning process.

Where does the evidence come from?

This summary draws on two major meta-analyses and three systematic reviews, each contributing unique insights into how group work and its assessment function in higher education.

  • Pai, Sears, and Maeda (2015) conducted a meta-analysis of 48 studies focused specifically on knowledge transfer in small group settings. They found a small-to-moderate positive effect (g = 0.30) and highlighted that group work is particularly effective when it incorporates both group goals and individual accountability. The authors used moderator analysis to identify effective instructional design features like scripts and task structure, improving confidence in the findings.
  • Lou et al. (2001) analysed 122 studies comparing small-group and individual learning with technology, revealing a small-to-moderate effect (g = 0.31) in favour of small groups. They found that group learning was more effective for complex problem-solving and when outcomes were assessed at the group level. This meta-analysis included studies from K–12 and higher education and used extensive subgroup analysis, reinforcing the generalisability of the results.
  • Springer, Stanne, and Donovan (1999) focused on undergraduate STEM fields and synthesised 39 studies. They found small-group learning improved achievement, attitudes, and persistence, especially in science and math. Their work is often cited to show group work's potential in traditionally individualistic fields.
  • Tomcho and Foels (2012) performed a meta-analysis of group learning activities in psychology education. While narrower in scope, they provided practical teaching recommendations, such as optimising group size and combining group work with individual assessments to avoid free-riding.
  • Forsell, Frykedal, and Chiriac (2019) conducted a qualitative systematic review of peer and group work assessment strategies. They highlighted student concerns about fairness and stress, especially around peer ratings and group-based grading. They also found that students valued transparent criteria and having a say in how assessment was done — e.g., contributing to the rubric or deciding weightings for individual vs group components.

Together, these studies included over 200 primary research studies and spanned multiple disciplines and contexts. While most used controlled experimental designs, the area of assessment within group work is less studied. For example, few papers measured how different assessment types (peer, self, group-based) impacted learning outcomes or motivation. These gaps point to a need for further high-quality research — but current findings offer a consistent and solid base for using structured, well-designed group work in higher education.

‍

References

Forsell, J., Forslund Frykedal, K., & Hammar Chiriac, E. (2020). Group work assessment: Assessing social skills at group level. Small Group Research, 51(1), 87-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419878269

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small Group and Individual Learning with Technology: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449–521. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003449

Pai, H.-H., Sears, D. A., & Maeda, Y. (2015). Effects of Small-Group Learning on Transfer: a Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 27(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9260-8

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021

Tomcho, T. J., & Foels, R. (2012). Meta-Analysis of Group Learning Activities: Empirically Based Teaching Recommendations. Teaching of Psychology, 39(3), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312450414

Additional Resources

Dr John Mahoney

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Browse popular summaries

Learning Environments

Artificial Intelligence

Bespoke AI tools like chatbots help learning, but less is more

Dr John Mahoney
Learning Design

Simulation

Providing students with opportunities to practice skills in simulated environments can enhance deep learning.

Dr John Mahoney
Designing Presentations

Signalling

You know what's most important right now - show learners too.

Dr Michael Noetel
Learning Environments

Service-learning and Community engagement

Helping those who are less fortunate makes for better students and better people.

Dr John Mahoney
This is some text inside of a div block.

Self-regulatory learning

Learning how to learn improves academic achievement.

Dr John Mahoney
Learning Design

Learning styles

Tailoring your teaching to the preferred learning style of the student does not increase learning.

Dr Michael Noetel