We keep hearing that school should involve students in more “real-world” situations (or prepare them for such, at least). I am of mixed minds about the basic premise, particularly as it applies to group work. However, I am nonetheless continuing to look at group projects and have even periodically given group tests. IF “group work” is going to be a more prominent part of school culture, however, in anything by so-called “low-stakes” assignments, then its method of assessment becomes critical.
The two ends of the spectrum of challenges may be described as “If I want a good grade, I have to do all the work” and “If I get good partners, I don’t have to do anything.” It seems to me that to address these challenges successfully, group projects need to have part of the assessment based on the outcome (otherwise, why bother to make it a group project?) as well as to have part of the assessment based on the individual’s contribution to the project.
Only in the somewhat unusual case where each member of a group is close to equally competent and close to equally motivated can one probably dispense with the second part.
Incidentally, making up group projects that are challenging to the best without leaving the weakest/least motivated in the dust is difficult. So is making a project for groups where members are of significantly divergent abilities/interests. The latter aspect is probably more of a problem for high schools (and perhaps colleges), where groups are not generally formed with each person’s bringing a specific area of expertise to the team.