In the course of teaching in higher education, teachers increasingly ask students to complete group assignments. To make this cooperative learning method work, teachers will evaluate the results of students’ group assignments to identify their strengths and weaknesses so that students can be motivated and improve. A reasonable evaluation mechanism for group work can combine the evaluation of the process of completing group work with the assessment of the results, the review of individual group members, and the evaluation of the group as a whole, and is a critical way to improve the effectiveness of group team learning (Xu et al., 2012). However, in traditional teaching, group work is continuously assessed individually, with the teacher giving marks directly to the students based on their work. This makes the evaluation of group assignments formal and unable to play its role.
Therefore, based on the analysis of the existing literature, this paper will use the questionnaire survey method to study the current situation of the evaluation of group assignments in economics and management colleges represented by Guangdong Finance College through the analysis of the survey data, we hope to: firstly, help teachers and students in economics and management colleges to recognize the shortcomings of the current evaluation of group assignments and draw their attention to them; secondly, allow them to understand the failures of the recent review of group assignments. Secondly, to design an evaluation scheme for group work in economics and management in conjunction with Guangdong Finance College so that the system will have some reference significance for actual teaching work. There are various problems with evaluating current group work in universities of economics and management, including vague evaluation criteria, incomplete performance information obtained during evaluation, lack of better feedback, and lack of objectivity in evaluation results. This paper will design a solution based on the findings of the actual survey at Guangdong Finance College and the specific problems analyzed.
The questionnaire consists of two main parts: the first part is the basic information of the respondents, and the second part is to investigate the current situation of group work evaluation, which involves the meaning of group work evaluation, evaluation criteria, evaluation methods, evaluators, implementation of evaluation and feedback. Since group work in university is a form of teamwork, the questionnaire used in this survey was designed concerning the questionnaire used by scholars Ge Qun, Zhu Wenting, and Wu Hongyuan in their research on team performance appraisal in enterprises (Zhu, 2010; Ge, 2006; Wu, 2009), which was modified to suit university group work to obtain the questionnaire used in this survey. To avoid respondents finding patterns in their questionnaire responses and to maintain the objectivity of the questionnaire analysis results, the author arranged the above six points in the questionnaire in a disordered order.
The respondents of this study are university students at Guangdong Finance College. Since junior and senior students at Guangdong Finance College have more contact with group work and have a more profound experience of group work evaluation, the author chose junior and senior students as the main target of questionnaire distribution. A total of 310 questionnaires were distributed, 310 questionnaires were collected, excluding those that were incomplete or not objective, and 286 valid questionnaires were obtained, with a reasonable return rate of 92.26%.
Statistical results on the personal situation of the survey respondents show that the survey respondents are roughly 50/50 male and female, with a higher proportion of female students, and the sample selection has good representativeness. Junior and senior students also account for nearly half each. In addition, the most significant number of group work teams is 5-7 people, accounting for 65.73%, so the author will design the group work evaluation scheme based on 5-7 people per team.
There is a high level of agreement on the significance of group work assessment. More than half of the students, 47.90% and 5.59%, respectively, strongly agreed and agreed that group work assessment is beneficial in improving their abilities. Most students agree that group work assessment can enhance their abilities. However, 14.34% of students disagreed, and 29.72% were unsure, indicating that there are still a certain number of students who do not understand the significance of group work assessment or do not agree that group work assessment can help them to improve their abilities.
Most students want a more comprehensive assessment of group work, and the current assessment criteria are well accepted. However, there are still some problems with the setting and communication of the assessment criteria. The statistical results show that more than half of the 58.04% of students were clear about the evaluation criteria. In comparison, 34.97% and 6.99% chose unclear evaluation criteria and thought there were no evaluation criteria is still a relatively high proportion. Thus, we know that the requirements for group work exist in most cases, but a certain number of students are still unclear about the criteria. In a relatively small number of cases, there are no honest assessment criteria, or where they are open, a small number of students believe that there are no assessment criteria. This suggests that there are still problems communicating the assessment criteria to students.
For students who were clear about the assessment criteria, more than half agreed and strongly agreed that the assessment criteria were set scientifically and reasonably, at 52.38% and 4.76%, but still less than two-thirds. This means some assessment criteria are still vague and not understood and agreed upon by students. If assessment criteria are general, without specific and clear indicators, and if there is no effective communication with students about the setting of assessment criteria, this may call into question the authenticity of the assessment (Guo, 2006). If students are unclear about the assessment criteria, the results are not objective and cannot be used effectively to motivate and improve, making assessment a formality (Wang, 2011). More than two-thirds of students thought that the evaluation of group work should assess the results of completion, the process of completion, and the attitude towards completion, at 71.68%, 70.28%, and 78.32%, respectively. In contrast, nearly half, 47.55%, thought that the ability to do the work should be assessed. Therefore, students prefer that they can be evaluated comprehensively when group work is assessed.
The most used form of assessment for group work is direct marking, accounting for 96.15%, while the verbal review is also used by 77.97%, and written examination is used relatively infrequently, at 23.78%. This suggests that the existing forms of group work assessment combine qualitative and quantitative evaluation, which can compensate for each other’s shortcomings and make the assessment methods more efficient; however, in quantitative assessment, the verbal review is used more often, and written examination is used less often, and oral evaluation is generally less detailed and limited by classroom time, so improvements can still be made here.
Nearly half of the respondents agreed with the existing method of evaluating group work, with 42.66% agreeing and 1.40% strongly agreeing, respectively, while those who were unsure accounted for 38.11% of the total. Most people disagree with the existing method of evaluating group work. This indicates that the current way of assessing group work is not perfect. The option of participating in the development of group work evaluation methods, agree and strongly agree, only accounted for 30.77% and 4.55%, respectively, which is less weight. It can be seen from this that students are less involved in developing group work assessment methods. Teachers mainly develop the existing group work assessment methods in Guangdong Finance College, and the single subject of development tends to lead to a lack of systematic consideration, a sound indicator system, and an excessive degree of subjectivity in the setting of the assessment methods. The validity and reliability of the assessment are questionable.
The teacher is 100% involved in evaluating existing group work, and there are very few opportunities for peer group members, group leaders, and other group members to participate in the evaluation. In most cases, there is a single subject for group work evaluation. In the assessment of group work, the teacher is often the sole subject of evaluation, and there is a lack of mutual and self-assessment among students, which makes the results too subjective and one-sided and easily influenced by the preferences of a single individual. At the same time, when all assessment is done by the teacher alone, teachers tend to consider more straightforward assessment methods and rarely adopt a systematic and comprehensive approach. As a result, it is challenging to achieve objective and fair results. In addition, individual assessment can lead to biases, such as leniency bias, which can lead to the assessor scoring more than is reasonable, rigor bias, which can lead to the assessor underestimating the work; or concentration bias, which can lead to the assessor giving a moderate score, ignoring objective circumstances.
The quantitative evaluation of the group work has been completed with the group work evaluation scores. In terms of qualitative evaluation, according to the analysis of the questionnaire data in the previous section, the verbal form of evaluation is currently relatively well developed, with teachers generally making oral evaluations immediately after students have presented their group work. However, verbal assessment is often not sufficiently detailed and is limited by the time available in the classroom. In this program, the written and oral evaluations will be set up mainly by more knowledgeable teachers. The assessment will be on the group’s work, without being specific to individual team members, given the more significant workload of teachers. The written language evaluation will take place after the presentation of the group work and will focus on the additional linguistic evaluation of the following aspects: firstly, the application of the professional knowledge acquired; secondly, the comprehensiveness and adequacy of the content; thirdly, the clarity and logic of the content; fourthly, the quantity and quality of the ideas and suggestions made; and fifthly, the innovativeness of the content.
To ensure that the assessment is carried out rigorously and is not a mere formality, firstly, teachers, as the students’ guides, should first have a good sense of teaching themselves and attach importance to group work assessment. Moreover, at the early stage of the implementation of this program, for students to understand and support the implementation of group work assessment, training is provided by teachers to students before the performance of the program as follows: firstly, an introduction to group work assessment, mainly to make students understand the purpose and meaning of group work assessment, the content is the purpose, meaning and characteristics of group work assessment.
Secondly, an introduction to the subject assessment and the subject of the evaluation, mainly to make students clear about the roles they, other students, and teachers play in the review of group work, and the content is the object of group work evaluation and the evaluation subjects corresponding to each object. Third, introducing group work evaluation indicators gives students a detailed and in-depth understanding of the indicators. The main content is the definition and weighting of each evaluation indicator for the overall and individual team member evaluation. Fourth, the introduction to the evaluation method of group work aims to enable team members to understand the workflow of group work evaluation, mainly including the steps of the assessment, the way of collecting evaluation data, and the calculation method of evaluation results.
To summarize, the current situation of group work evaluation in Guangdong Finance College includes: firstly, there is a high degree of recognition of the significance of group work evaluation; secondly, most students hope to get a more comprehensive assessment of group work, and the existing group work evaluation criteria are also recognized to a high degree, but there are still some problems in the setting and communication of evaluation criteria; thirdly, the existing group work evaluation methods still need to be improved; fourthly, the participation in The majority of students believe that there should be multiple evaluation subjects; fifth, the implementation of group work evaluation has a certain degree of objectivity and rigor, but there is still room for further improvement; sixth, the existing feedback on group work evaluation is relatively poor.
References
Xu, Y., Wei, P., Mao, J.Y. (2012). A brief discussion on the optimization strategies of cooperative group learning in colleges and universities. Journal of Lanzhou College of Education, 6(3). 124-125.
Zhu, W. (2010). Research on performance evaluation of the risheng real estate engineering project team. Central South University. 77-76.
Ge, Q. (2006). Research and application of performance appraisal system for the R&D team. Northwestern Polytechnical University. 20.
Wu, H. (2009). Research the performance evaluation system of knowledge-based employees in enterprises – a case study of small and medium-sized enterprises in Huai’an City. Yangzhou University. 35.
Guo, J. (2006). Research on the performance appraisal system of the R&D project team of Northwest Pennzoil Company. Xi’an University of Technology. 20-23.
Wang, X. (2011). Construction of a project team performance management system in an automotive design company. North China Electric Power University. 17-20.