Group work issues at uni - AIBU to not be happy with the lecturer's response?

[groupworkblues]

We have to give a group presentation next week as a group of 6. Two of the members have not been turning up to meetings and ignoring WhatsApp messages and emails sent to their university email address. They will turn up to the occasional meeting, but miss most of them. Most of the time they won't message or give any reason for missing the meeting, or they will let us know during the meeting that they can't attend due to work, a society meeting (where they were doing craft activities, so nothing compulsory) or an appointment they would have know about in advance. They make no attempt to reschedule the meeting or flag to us in advance to ask us to change the date/time.

Their contributions to the presentation has been pretty rubbish. Both aren't really relevant to what was asked of them and they both have misunderstood what was needed (and we've not been able to clarify as they're not in the meetings).

We spoke to the lecturer as our attempts of speaking to them on WhatsApp, email and in person haven't helped. They responded that they were frustrated for us, but if we want a good grade we'll have to just get on with it and do their sections ourselves.

It isn't comparable though. In a group assignment, everyone is equal. They have no leverage with which to manage their peers. There are no consequences to doing fuck all if marks are awarded for the group and not the individual. The only way in which other group members can "manage" the situation, if all reasonable attempts to secure cooperation gap fail, is to suck it up and do the extra work themselves.

In an employment situation, there is a manager and the potential to be fired if you don't do the job that is required of you. Yes, there are crap managers who don't do their jobs properly, but in theory at least, there is a mechanism to get rid.

It's lazy on the part of the lecturers to suggest that academic group work is comparable to teamwork in the real world. It isn't.

DD had this exact issue. We discussed it and then she aporoached Lecturer to say she no longer wished to be linked with this student, and why. Request was granted.

Im surprised at the 'do their work if they won't' attitude of some pp's. it's really not a good mindset to foist on a young person, that they should carry lazy people. & Uni isnt free so getting the best out of it is important, not being blighted by some lazy bod & lecturer, then not speaking up.

I guess some have been to Uni's that have shit lecturers...

I think that's the theory. I don't think it's true in practice.

I never set group assessments for this reason. But we are encouraged to have them because it diversifies the assessment tasks which is apparently popular with students and it's good preparation for the workplace. If you don't like them or want them assessing differently, tell your lecturer and your student rep.

And as I said I do (30-40 is a fail) I just don't like going really low as you're basically failing them for the piece of work they haven't even started at that point too.

I personally design group work so it is a small % and used as feedforward so operates as 1/ a way to kick students into thinking about their later individual assignment and 2/ to provide detailed feedback which they can use for their individual assignment later on. If we make it informal/formative they won't do it. Obviously it changes things if the group work is 100% of a module.

None of the group assignments that I was required to do on my MBA (at a well respected business school!) included any reflective elements.

There was one module that did include a reflective piece on a group task, but it was only the individual reflection that was graded, and not the group task itself. That was much better imo.

But if they have done nothing on the group task, why do you think they deserve 30%?

Yes, a lower mark might mean that they fail the whole module, but if they're smart enough to do university level work, presumably they're smart enough to work out that they need to do some work to get some marks?

You say that they won't do it if you make it informal/formative, but you seem to be missing the point that some aren't doing it anyway. Why is it that you think it's fair for those individuals to get the credit for other people's work?

All of the people on my MBA course were experienced managers to a greater or lesser degree. All of us were experienced at working in teams etc. The group projects did not help anyone develop any transferable skills as far as I could see. However, they probably did cut down quite significantly on the amount of marking that the lecturers needed to do. Call me cynical, but I do think that there are reasons for doing these group assignments that have nothing to do with any real or perceived educational benefit.

And if it really is about the educational value in getting people to work in a group, then academics need to design the assessments so that the marking is based on the process of collaboration rather than the end product. Otherwise, it is a completely pointless exercise from which the students will learn nothing.

Absolutely. The mantra of external examiners is, 'have you considered other forms of assessment?' Often seems just for the sake of it. As an external, I suggested other forms of assessment but not group assessments. It can be done if students are able to log their contributions or if the assessment part of the assignment is about presentation skills or analysis of the process. There's also interesting work being done around assessment AS learning, wherein the process of group work is assessed in real time. Alverno College in the USA has some excellent examples of this, often using partners from local businesses to help with the process.

I've had few instances where they've not done anything at all or where contribution is disputed. Typically, when we get complaints it's by more conscientious students who plan ahead get annoyed it's not complete a week before deadline, then the procrastinators suddenly do a lot the night before. So generally it's different styles of working. If they truly haven't done anything and admit to that then I'll mark them accordingly. I think this has happened about twice in 16 years. Regular checking in with groups in seminars helps to alleviate some of the issues. Its hard work managing the groups as a result though, which is why more and more modules are going to 100% exam.

There will be plenty of occasions when people have done fuck all and you just don't know about it. People give up raising it in the end, because nothing is done. They just suck it up because there is no choice.

And I disagree that it's simply down to different styles of working. I have adhd and am a major procrastinator/last minute merchant, but I absolutely did more than my fair share on every single group assignment that I ever did.

And having interviewed literally hundreds of students over the years with questions about teamwork, I think my experience is the norm. Most groups will have at least one student who contributes nothing.

I've worked at unis before where there are 'fail criteria'. If they turn up, do the bare minimum and don't do anything to meet the criteria to actually fail them, they get 40.

I can absolutely see the value of assessing the process of group work in real time, and of involving local businesses in this. That could offer genuine opportunities for learning and developing collaborative skills.

A written group assignment where everyone gets the same grade and the marker has no idea which student has written which bit... not so much.

Having previously worked in HE, I can well believe it. It's a shame that the academics involved don't have the courage and the integrity to push back on this a bit harder. I do appreciate that they have their career to think about and bills to pay etc, but dumbing down our universities to that extent is shameful, and it won't help anyone in the long term as degrees will become increasingly worthless as employers start to realise what's happening.

I had this. Lecturer said the same as others. I counteracted that at work I would go to LM and something would be done, people moved around etc, so no. It's not "life". This is simply just teaching people to tolerate useless colleagues and the uselles that they will be tolerated.
He said to deal with it. So we did. We fired the person doing absolutely nothing from the project, notified the lecturer that it has been dealt with and how and that the matter is now closed. Even followed written warnings procedure. Did that part of presentation ourselves so no reason for some slacker to get credit.
I was easily annoyed mature student. Never had group work issues for the remaining time at uni.

This is simply just teaching people to tolerate useless colleagues and the useless that they will be tolerated.

To be fair, for some academics who haven't ever worked outside academia, that might just be what the world of work looks like. When I worked in HE, the management of academics was often extremely "light touch" and crap people were allowed to float around for years without anyone doing anything about it. So maybe some just think that's the norm?

That's true actually, I'm often amazed by stories from friends who work at universities.
I'm like "why don't you fire them?"
"Oh, we can't do that."

That's a good point. So it's "academia life"

I agree it's lazy and unfair. Just "giving" 40% to people who've made no effort is ridiculous. If them getting less (or 0%) means them failing the module, then tough! Actions (or lack of) should have consequences.

Actions (or lack of) should have consequences.

Now there's a novel concept!!

This doesn't make any sense. You mark them at deadline, if they haven't started the work before the submission deadline then the work should be marked 0. What exactly are you marking as 30%? Lack of any work?
So if they don't submit their essay, do you also mark it as 30% because the circumstances are identical - the work is due and they haven't started it.

Someone can not prepare for a meeting at all, turn up and wing it. Many do it quite regularly.

Similarly, people can not start a report until the day its due and submit a half-arsed attempt that's not good, but it's the bare minimum of what's needed. Your boss may not be happy about it, but its what they asked for on a basic level.

We mark according to the marking rubric. So 30 would usually have a qualitative explanation. I've never had a student not turn up.

I think you misunderstand my post. I meant I have 2 pieces of coursework. First a group assignment then later in the term an individual essay. I use the first to kick start and provide feedback for the second. So both are marked at their own deadlines.

I get that but the issue is where the person hasn't done any work, not submitted anything and still gets 30% of the mark because it' would be "unfair to mark them for the work they haven't started". This doesn't make any sense to me. If they submitted something, then sure. But if they didn't do anything for this particular segment of the assignment then surely there is nothing there to mark at all.

So they should be marked on whatever they choose to deliver or submit - half arsed or otherwise. But their lack of effort should not in any way be allowed to drag down the results of other students, nor should the other students feel obliged to put in extra work in case one individual fails to do their bit.

If there is a group assignment, there needs to be absolute clarity on who is responsible for which bits, and the others should not be penalised for the failure of one individual to fulfil their responsibilities. Better still, find a way of assessing the collaborative process rather than its end product.

As a manager, if one member of my staff chooses to wing it in a meeting and embarrasses the whole team with their lack of adequate preparation, I'm not going to deal with that individual's poor performance by disciplining other team members or giving them a poor appraisal. That would be absurd!