Mechanical Engineering Students at the University of Birmingham (UoB) are concerned about their department’s policy on marking group work, with some students taking to social media to voice their concerns anonymously.

The guidance in question focuses on assessing group work for the IDP2 module (an Independent Design Project which focuses on developing professional and teamwork skills) and the contribution that each student has made to a group project assignment. According to assessment guidance circulated to second year students, group members identify themselves with a specific letter and then score each other from a criteria. These criteria included elements such as “worked harmoniously” and “contributed substantially.” The guidance states that the total score for across all students must equal 30, and if it does not, it must be modified. 

Assignments are marked by an academic mentor and the group mark is awarded, then an individual mark is adjusted from the group mark. This means that a maximum of two people can get a high mark, and if these two people get a high mark, it automatically means that 2 other people in the group will get a lower mark for their contribution. 

The concerns in question were voiced on Brumfess, UoB’s confessions page on Facebook. Here students can share their opinions anonymously on a wide range of subjects relating to the University. One Brumfess post declared that the policy is ‘open to exploitation, manipulation and bullying.’

After seeing the concerns circulating on social media, Engineering students affected by the policy were approached to give their views. 

One second year Mechanical Engineering student, (who asked not to be named) gave their opinion on the latest measures, stating that ‘I feel that the peer assessment for IDP2 has the potential to be unfair, because you have to split 30 marks between 6 people, and depending on your score, you can get plus or minus 5% on your group’s overall average score. Due to having to split marks between people, if someone gets more marks and therefore a higher grade, someone else will have to get less marks and a lower grade.’

‘I just feel this is really unfair’, they continued. ‘Just because one person had done more work in one category, it doesn’t automatically mean someone else has done less.’

They also pointed out that the policy is problematic for students with disabilities, such as Asperger’s syndrome or dyspraxia.  ‘I think it can potentially discriminate against neurodiverse people, as they may struggle to be active in group discussions or effectively organise their time and not feel overwhelmed. As a result, they can then be seen as doing less work or being lazy when this is just not the case.’

Another second year student said: ‘I know there is lots of negativity towards this policy, and I can partly see why. Personally, though, I think it’s a positive. One main problem that surfaces out of group work is that there usually ends up one or two people doing all the work and the others just don’t contribute or leave it to the others to get done. Often, people don’t feel comfortable calling out those who haven’t pulled their weight in the group. So, I think in this sense, it rewards the people who have made the effort and it highlights when there are people who could’ve put a bit more effort in.’

Dr Neil Cooke, the IDP2 module convenor, was approached for comment. Explaining how the policy itself works, he stated: ‘In IDP2, based on several years’ experience, the peer marking process is made as transparent as possible with many safeguards. Students agree their relative levels of contribution and declare them on the group submission together with a written statement of contribution. If the group does not unanimously agree this statement, then the peer assessment is ignored and all (non-absent) group members receive the same mark. If the group does agree to the relative levels of contribution, then their peer assessment is considered, along with the written statements of contribution, academic supervisor input, and moderation by module coordinators, to determine any final adjustment. Any adjustment to an individual mark is also capped so that an individual mark does not deviate from the group mark.’

Dr Cooke recognised the potential negative aspects of the policy and also went on to comment briefly on the positives. ‘The negatives are, in common with other peer assessment processes, some students will try to ‘game’ it e.g. block voting. It appears that in this case, the issue of getting the groups to agree a level of contribution creates anxiety that weaker members will be peer-pressured.’ 

‘This is designed to ensure that group members are incentivised to contribute and engage. Also, the peer-assessment process itself educates students about what is considered good team behaviours.’

Dr Cooke was made aware of the concerns circulating on social media and stated that ‘we have heard of no evidence of exploitation, manipulation and bullying, and have robust policies in place to deal with any unacceptable behaviours from individuals.’

Like this article? Here are some similar stories from News:

University Teaching in Wales to Remain Online Until After Easter

Interview: Digbeth Dining Club’s Free School Meals Initiative

Lateral Flow Testing Missed 97% of Positive Tests