Are traditional assessment methods appropriate in contemporary higher education? Jun. 2014 | Page 7

am here”. Research by Almond (2009) would support the view
of the students in these comments. Almond’s (2009) research
indicates that in mixed ability groups, students that normally
score highly when assessed individually have their marks
reduced or brought down by other students in their group.
Whereas those students that when assessed individually have
lower marks, found that their marks increased when in mixed
ability groups. . Knight (cited in Plastow et al, 2010:401) also
found that “group marks were higher than individual assignment
marks and the number of fails was lower in group assessment
than their individual assessments. Plastow et al (2010) go on to
say that the increase in marks during group work disguises the
lack of skills and knowledge lower achievers have enabling them
to pass and move on to the next module despite not having
reached an appropriate level of skills and knowledge. Plastow et
al (2010) therefore felt group assessment not appropriate for
first year undergraduate study but considered it as suitable for
final degree level.
Assessment designers therefore need to be clear on what group
work is assessing, asking themselves what learning outcomes
this assessment is seeking to address. Learning outcomes that
relate to team working or working in groups may therefore
require a group or team based assessment, but clarity also
needs to be given on what marks are being allocated for. One of
the biggest areas of debate regarding group based assessment
is how they will be marked, for example, will it be one group
mark or should individual performance be rewarded too? Many
people seek to use a combination of both often introducing
personal assignments related to the group project.
The research indicates that group work provides opportunities
for students to develop their learning and their higher level skills
(Burdett 2003, Plastow et al 2010) but this is not reflected in all
the students’ results, particularly those that are normally high
achievers. This would suggest a lack of constructive alignment
between the learning outcome, learning activities and the
assessment which in turn suggests it is not authentic.
Willmott (2014) makes an interesting distinction between
group based assessment and team based assessment and
perhaps the focus for authentic assessment should therefore
be on the team rather than the group. He identifies group
based assessment as an activity that the individual could in
reality achieve on their own. For example, writing a business
report. A Team based assessment is one that in reality requires
the combined talents and strengths of the individuals to
successfully complete the task. He uses an example of an
assessment that involved students creating video presentations
on a bioethics theme. This he described as a Team based
assessment because the skills required were wide and varied.
For example the assessment required a variety of skills from the

A BPP Business School working paper

creative and the artistic through to the technical and practical
and the academic and theoretical. Choosing teams based on
their individual strengths establishes their role (Belbin 2010)
and creates a sense of purpose. This in turn should reduce
the social loafing or free riding that can happen in group work
where some students don’t pull their weight. If all students
have something specific they bring to the assessment then one
student not performing means they all fail, as opposed to group
based assessment that means it is possible for students to pass
without doing anything.
The appropriateness and authenticity of group and team based
assessments depends on what is being assessed and this
brings us back to the concept of authenticity as constructive
alignment. Within group work assignments there is a danger
of weak students passing unnoticed onto the next stage of
the course when they haven’t got the full set of skills. Group
based assessments therefore carry risks when used too early
on in undergraduate degrees. Team based assessments are as
focused on what the students do as individuals and contribute
to the team, as they are the end product. Group work can be
used as a way of reducing the number of assignments for
marking, but if constructively aligned to the learning outcomes
could prove an appropriate form of authentic assessment
depending on the nature of the students and the stage of study.

Conclusion
This paper has shown that traditional examinations have been
widely criticised for lacking validity and authenticity. They are
primarily considered appropriate for testing knowledge and
comprehension but do not authentically assess higher level
skills such as synthesis and evaluation. Despite this lack of
authenticity examinations are still widely used in the sector.
Programme teams are finding it challenging to move away
from examination based practices, constrained by institutional
culture, lengthy regulatory frameworks and lack of training.
Portfolio based assessment has been identified as more
relevant for vocationally orientated qualifications and those
directly related to the professions. Portfolio’s are used by many
professionals as part of their ongoing practice but have also
been shown to reduce opportunities for plagiarism and provide
more opportunity for inclusion in assessment.
Group based assessment is the subject of much debate and if
used traditionally and too early on in a degree is likely to lack
authenticity, but if the concept of team based assessment is
adapted and the appropriate of learning outcomes for team
based activities aligned, there is a stronger argument of ? for the
use of group based assessment as an authentic activity.

bpp.com