Institutional challenges

The revenue stream of a higher education institutes depends, to a large extent, on the size of the student population. However, there are systemic constraints that limit the indefinite increase in the student population size. For instance, increasingly large classes would tax highly on the ability of the faculty to return marked assignments in the appropriate timely manner. The focus on the use of group work and peer assessment within the HE setting has also been increasing over the years (van den Berg, 2006). Such a trend exerts pressure upon higher education institutes, which are yet to adopt the strategy. One of the benefits of administering group (instead of individual) assignments is that it reduces the overall marking load on academics. However, if such a benefit is lopsided; that is only the faculty side perceives it, and not the students, then the system becomes discredited. Students’ are after all the clientele of the higher education institutes and the direct source of income stream.

The qualification bodies address personal skill development by students; the subject benchmark statement for biosciences (QAA, 2007a) acknowledges that ‘group work has a significant training benefit’, and the statement for biomedical sciences (QAA, 2007), although not explicitly referring to group work, does include the expectation that a biomedical sciences graduate will acquire adequate communication skills, and may well have been involved in poster and oral presentations.

Whatever the perceived (or actual) benefits to the students, any assessment associated with collaborative learning must be seen to be fair. Although Race, et al. comment that establishing the level of contribution of respective group members can be problematic, Rust and East both advocate a system whereby both ‘process’ and ‘product’ are assessed (Race, et al., 2005; Rust, 2001; East, 2008). Rust suggests how ‘variable contribution’ might be teased out during the process, and Cogdell, et al. have introduced group work, into a large 1st _year biology class at the University of Glasgow, that uses peer assessment to address individual team member contribution (Rust, 2001; Cogdell, et al., 2004).

4.1.2 Collaborative learning

In this form of learning, learners work within groups to achieve a common goal. Each member collaborates with every other in order to accomplish the learning task (Dillenbourg, 1999). The individual learners draw on their unique strengths and skills, and their time and effort to contribute to the group output. The

knowledge by engaging and sharing experiences with another (Kelly, 2002). The activities or tasks assigned would not have otherwise been accomplishable by an individual except through collaboration. Other skills, such as critical thinking, have been shown to be enhanced through collaborative learning (Gokhale, 1995; Pitsoe & Malla, 2013; Zhan & Mei, 2013).

Collaborative learning team/group work are all derived from the concept of setting students a task for completion by a set of students that can be put into groups by the lecturer or allowed to form their own groups (Johnson & Johnson, Cooperative learning: Where we have been, where we are going., 1993). Research has shown since the 1990s that active learning and cooperative learning techniques are superior to straight lecturing (Hake, 1998; Johnson & Johnson, Cooperative learning: Where we have been, where we are going., 1993). Tasks can be set for group projects where learned principles are applied, such as in the analysis of case studies, production of scientific posters, holding ethical debates.

Educators endeavour to encourage deep learning in their students and research supports the link between ‘social interactions, critical thinking and deep learning’ (Resnick, et al., 1991; Hartford, 2005; Holley & Boyle, 2012). Collaborative learning through group work facilitates social interaction and thus develops cognitive skills, this works through both student-student interaction and lecturer-student interaction (Entwhistle & Ramsden, 1983; Comeaux & McKenna-Byington, 2003). Virtual learning environments provide a framework for a different kind of group work allowing for asynchronous discussion. Using

this web-based method it may now be possible to, more accurately, determine the contribution an individual student makes to the group assignment. Careful consideration is important since good communication and the ability to work as part of a team are two skills highly valued by employers. Collaborative learning if used effectively can develop these skills. WebLearn provides the e-framework for a different kind of group work allowing for asynchronous discussion between group members and the tutors, and moderation of the student contributions. Using this web-based method it may now be possible to, more accurately, assess the contribution an individual student makes to the group assignment.

Although collaborative learning traditionally has been carried out through face- to-face interactions, its scope can be enhanced further through the use of online tools (Reeves, et al., 2004). In other words, the collaborators do not have to be situated in the same place in order to work together. Several online platforms have been made available for collaborative learning, an example of which is Blackboard. Computer-mediated collaborative learning has been foreseen in the early days of personal computers and widespread home-based operating systems (Warschauer, 1997). Many of the virtual learning environments platforms today have been conceived with collaborative learning as an essential feature (Sheremetov & Arenas, 2002; Aspden & Helm, 2004; Su & Beaumont, 2010). The use of wiki as a platform for collaboration has been where the efforts at promoting online collaborative learning are (Boulos, Maramba, & Wheeler, 2006; Su & Beaumont, 2010; Naismith, et al., 2011). In the field of medical sciences, a recent undertaking by Westbrook (2012) urges the use of

4.1.3 Motivation by assessment

The idea that assessment motivates learning (Gibbs, 1999; Gibbs, 2006; Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) is a powerful driver for the development of assessment practices that enhance that process. Assessment motivates an individual student because it provides a sense of achievement and enables them to check on their level of learning achieved. In particular it has been shown that for assignment feedback to contribute to student learning, the feedback has, among other features, to be timely; that is, it has to be returned to the student ‘while it still matters to them and in time for them to pay attention’

- and act on it’ (Brown, et al., 2003; Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; Weaver, 2006).

Feedback is a necessary requisite for learners to be able to continue with any learning task.

However, in the context of collaborative learning the challenge is on how to provide an individual mark despite the fact that the individual is part of a collaborative group. One way of doing this is to engage each member of the group to evaluate themselves and their colleagues. But in order to implement this strategy in order, a rubric system must be in place. The rubric shall guide the individual learners on how they should be evaluating the performance of their colleagues (Appendix C).

The practice of peer review is actually a good learning experience. In real instances, peer review is also being used in industry and in many professions as a way to check and balance each and everyone's share of a group task. Hence, by implementing a peer-review system for the students, they derive an

additional source of motivation (Järvelä, et al., 2010). There is also the added motivation to impress their group members by doing their part of the task to the best that they can, in order to earn the highest possible evaluation score. In other words, by injecting a peer-review process not only does the tutor extract individual grades from collaborative work, but also provides more reason for the group to be motivated in excelling in producing the highest quality output against the other groups.

The use of discussion boards within Learning Management Systems or Virtual Learning Environments allow the tutors to post comments for the students during the development of the coursework enabling them to respond to the feed-forward and make changes to the work before it is presented as their final submission.

4.1.4 Participation

Group work can be hampered by some students’ lack of participation, and this may be difficult to track. Brighter students can feel that they have made the best contribution and would have been better alone. In this research, the author has found, in agreement with other published work (Haynes & Haynes, 2012), that the students’ group mark was higher than the score achieved for their individual report. Peer assessment is one documented way to get over some of the problems associated with marking students (in the biological sciences) who are part of a team (Falichov, 1986; Orsmond, 1996; Cogdell, et al., 2004; Davies, 2009). As mentioned in the previous section, by engaging group members in the

motivation is derived. This motivation to excel is exactly the impetus that pushes the students to participate in collaborative tasks (Dooly, 2008; Järvelä, et al.,

2010). As long as the students are guided by clear rubrics on how to evaluate their peers the system should provide a positive addition to the collaborative learning strategy (Cogdell, Brown, & Campbell, 2004).

The motivation to participate would be further enhanced if an individual recognition system were put in place. The affective issues are just as important as the social issues in the context of participation in a collaborative setting (Jones & Issroff, 2005; Dooly, 2008; Wang Q. , 2009). Education technology has been crucial in enhancing the participation of learners in collaboration with others (Wang Q. , 2009).

As a matter of fact, by facing the prospect of being graded, it does not really matter as from whom the assessment originate (Wiliam, Lee, Harrison, & Black, 2004; Davies, 2009). Hence, if now the student in a collaborative-learning scenario faces the prospect of being graded by the teacher and by other students, then all the more will the student be driven to excel. The drive to impress collaborators becomes an additional extrinsic motivation to participate in collaborative work.

4.1.5 Student self-perception of their performance within group work

Academic motivation is directly related to self-perception of performance. A study finds that academic motivation is a key element in determining the contribution of a learner to the group output. The role that the learner takes

within the group is likewise influenced by the individual academic motivation (Rienties, et al., 2009).

Self-perception of performance is however not necessarily what a student is projecting to his collaborators. The peer-review system essentially provides a feedback mechanism that the student could use in conjunction with their self- perception. In order to be fair at this, self-perception may also be integrated into the grading system. A portion of the student's individual grade for collaborative work will be taken from self-perception of performance, while the rest will be taken from the evaluation of his peers. A weighted average might seem appropriate.

In this peer-review system, the teaching team will evaluate the output of the group. But gradations for individual marks will be made by a combination of the project grade and the one emerging from the peer-review and self-perception of performance.