4. [compare each student's average contribution to a
deviation chart. A portion of that chart is included
here:

Share of Total as part of 100%:

2-Person
Group

% Expected

Project Grade
(of ltr. grade)

70 -3/3
80 -2/3
90 -1/3
100 0

110 +1/3
120 +2/3
130 +3/3

 

5. I determine the plus or minus deviation for each
student and add it to the project’s grade to arrive at
the individual’s grade.

Example: If Sally, Bart, and Karen’s project received
a B, then I would follow the chart to determine that
Karen’s grade should be a B+ since her share of the
total according to the calculation of averages was
38%.

6. Ireport each student’s grade in a summary similar
to the following:

Collaborative Project Grade: B (85%)
Your Deviation: +1/3 grade
Your Individual Grade: B+ (89%)

This grading system for collaborative projects rests
on two assumptions. First, 1am going to grade the
product. That’s my territory of expertise, and I want to
keep it. The system would still work, however, if the
instructor graded the product with a student jury
system. The point is that the product’s grade stands as
a separate factor from any judgment of individual
contributions. Second, students are going to judge their
relative contributions since they are in a better position
than I to observe the group and individuals at work. I
grade the product; the students grade each other.

This system depends upon insight, honesty, fairness,
good judgment, and accurate memory and records. It
can be used maliciously, of course. Also, I have found it
necessary to encourage students not to be too lenient
and forgiving with each other, especially in relation to
absences and missed deadlines. After all, students are
prone to avoiding the social discomforts of negatively
sanctioning their peers.

Nevertheless, | have found that this method sharp-

Suanne D. Roueche, Editor

November 17, 1995 Vol. XVII, No. 28

© The University of Texas at Austin, 1995
Further duplication is permitted by MEMBER
institutions for their own personnel.

 

ens students’ judgment skills. They find themselves
forced to weigh and balance the values of their various
contributions from the beginning of the project. In
technical communications, for instance, the individual
tasks of planning the project, designing documents /
pages, producing graphics, drafting text, keyboarding,
editing and proofreading, and collating final versions
force each participant to acknowledge the importance
of each others’ time, efforts, and skills. To assess
relative contributions, they must compare apples and
oranges, graphics production to graphics. Each must
reflectively answer the questions, “To what extent did
each of my colleagues and I fulfill our expected contri-
butions to the collaborative project? What would this
document have been like without any one of us?”

I’m sure that I will rework and massage this system
every time I use it. I may even find that it ceases to
work well for some reason I don’t foresee. In the
meantime, with proper introduction, it’s a valuable
teaching tool.

Roger M. Phillips, Instructor, English
For further information contact the author at Alpena

Community College, 666 Johnson Street, Alpena, MI
49707-1495.

INNOVATION ABSTRACTS (ISSN 0199-106X) is published weekly following the fall and spring terms of the academic
calendar, except during Thanksgiving week, by the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development (NISOD),
Department of Educational Administration, College of Education, SZB 348, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
78712-1293, (512) 471-7545. Second-class postage pending at Austin, Texas. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to
INNOVATION ABSTRACTS, SZB 348, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712-1293.