How to evaluate group work and recognize 'hidden champions'? Here is an idea: The Positive Boost

One of the biggest challenges in higher education is that didactics is moving more and more toward experiential learning through projects and group work, while our grading system is still bound by the limitations of numerical grading.

• How do you evaluate project work with external partners in a fair way?
• How can you account for individual contributions, especially when you as lecturer do not see the majority of the work?
• How do you motivate each student to give their best to the group without fostering toxic competitiveness?
• How do you create an environment in which also more silent students feel seen and heard?

?I asked myself all these questions when I started teaching the Open Innovation course at Zeppelin University two years ago. On the one hand, it was clear to me that such a course requires a project-based assignment, since innovation is best learned by trying it out yourself. Therefore, all students were divided into groups of 3 to 5 and had the task of conducting open innovation projects with different project partners. The overall grading would be based on a presentation and a project report that they had to submit as a group. Nothing new so far.

However, after having conducted quite some research on team performance, work place climate and leadership, I wanted to foster an atmosphere of ambition and motivation, but based on mutual respect and appreciation instead of high pressure, unnecessary competition, and negative stress. I am also always in favour of integrating peer-feedback into the project-based classes, but I didn't want to use it for grading as it is also very much sensitive to group dynamics.?

In the end, I came up with the following idea, which I tried out during the past two courses : the Positive Boost. What class fits better to innovating education than a course on open innovation, after all...

How does the Positive Boost work?

After turning in the final assignments, students received a link to a short survey with two questions:?(1) Did everyone contribute equally to the group project? (2) Was there one or more people who contributed significantly more than others to the final result?

For the second question, they could enter up to three names of their group mates. The Positive Boost would become effective if one person was nominated by more than 50% of the team members and if there were no "circle nominations" (everyone nominates everyone else). In the latter case or if the 50% threshold was not reached, nothing would happen and the initial grade - which was always fixed before the survey - would remain unchanged. This means that no one can lower their grade by this measure or screw anyone over. If a person was mentioned more often by their classmates, they received a small grade boost (of course, only if the grade was not already the highest possible).?

If communicated the mechanics of the Positive Boost to the students at several points: At the beginning of the course, at the end (when discussing the assignment and grading again), and via email when sending out the survey. Here is a short excerpt from an email to students that explains the purpose of the Positive Boost (translated from German):

"What's the point of the Positive Boost?

Think of it as an opportunity for you to appreciate the "hidden champions" in your team. As a lecturer, I cannot see what is going on behind the scenes and whether the work was equally distributed or not. This is meant as a voluntary way of appreciating other team members, but of course if requires also a great deal of self-reflection fro everyone and maybe also admitting that others might have done the heavy lifting. Let's try ??."

I used the Positive Boost in two courses and in both cases, 2-3 students benefited from the intervention. I told them about their evaluation afterwards, too, as I think receiving such a nice feedback from peers outweighs the feeling of any high grade.?

Evaluation based on student survey

Since this was an experiment from the beginning, I asked students about their honest opinion of this little innovation. In total, 28 students (9 female, 19 male) answered this survey and here are the results:?

As expected, workload in group projects is always not evenly distributed among the students.?

In general, the students indicated that they appreciated this opportunity and see potential in it to bring more fairness to the grading.

Whether the Positive Boost actually has an effect on the students' motivation for the project remains unclear. However, that was not the idea. Rather, I was particularly pleased that the majority saw it as a way to create visibility for students who do the hard work but tend to be quiet.?

Promoting the potential and self-efficacy of the hidden and silent champions is an educational mission that is very close to my heart. Of course, the Positive Boost does not solve all the problems in this area and is only a small tool, but perhaps it will provide some ideas on how to think about the issue.

I also look forward to hearing more about your ideas:

• Do you work with similar mechanisms?
• How do you recognize individual contribution in group work?
• What are your experiences in fostering an atmosphere of mutual respect and appreciation in group work?

Looking forwards to your feedback!

(I am also considering an article on how to manage group composition in higher education projects from a lecturer perspective, as I have been grappling with this challenge for some time. Would you be interested in reading that?)