Peer assessment of contributions to teamwork
Imagine …
You’ve assigned students to small groups to work on an assignment that will take almost the whole term to complete. You’ve given students explicit written instructions that detail what the purpose of the assignment is and what the completed assignment should include when they submit it. The instructions also state that each member of the group should contribute to the assignment.
Several weeks into the assignment, students start emailing you with complaints that certain group members are not pulling their weight. In one case, a group has let you know that members are no longer even talking to each other. You realize that instead of working together as teams, students are “locking horns.”
Have you ever had this experience? Or have you ever wanted your students to work in teams to complete an assignment but feared this scenario? This article describes how instructors can use peer assessment (PA) of teamwork to make teamwork work to foster students’ productive and collegial work in teams and minimize instances of students “locking horns.”
While the terms “group work” and “teamwork” are sometimes used interchangeably, teamwork “implies something about how the students are working together.”[1] Specifically, “teamwork” refers to a group of students’ intentional, sustained collaboration toward achieving a common goal over a period of time, such as a term. As some authors have explained, “With a group, the whole is often equal to or less than the sum of its parts; with a team, the whole is always greater.”[2]
Addressing challenges with teamwork
How can peer assessment address challenges associated with teamwork?
Teamwork can be challenging when:
students are more accustomed to completing assignments individually than with peers as part of a team;
students feel their peers are not contributing equally: A common concern is “social loafing” or “free-loading,” when certain individuals “make less effort when they work collectively than when they work alone”;[3] and
interpersonal conflicts bear on students’ learning experience.
Peer assessment (PA) of teamwork, namely, having students assess peers’ contributions to teamwork as well as their behaviour throughout the completion of the assignment, has the potential to mitigate these challenges. While students’ past experiences may include some of the challenges described above, PA of teamwork has the potential to:
contribute to group learning, the development of shared understandings, and a sense of accountability / responsibility for one another’s learning;[4][5][6]
encourage full participation in group work and help improve students’ perception of fairness when students’ individual contributions to group work are assessed;[7] and
allow students to develop their collaboration, negotiation and pre-emptive conflict management skills.[8][6]
When carefully planned, having students assess peers’ performance can be a pedagogically sound addition to a course that encourages students to reflect on the team experience.[9] Indeed, attending to team members’ abilities to work together and regularly reflecting on efforts to foster teamwork is widely recommended because these efforts can support effective teamwork.[3][10]
This article presents a four-stage framework—forming, storming, norming, and performing[11]—for setting up student groups to work effectively as teams as a means of laying a solid foundation for the integration of PA activities. In turn, PA activities can support students with having meaningful teamwork learning experiences.
(Tuckman and Jensen (1977)[12] later introduced a fifth stage: adjourning. As adjourning refers to the closure of the teamwork activities, adjourning is not addressed in this article.)
Watch a video explanation of this framework. (TLS, 4:40 min)
A framework for team development
Forming
Forming is a stage of teamwork where students come together in groups and begin to orient themselves to what it means to work interdependently. It is important to let students know why you are asking them to work in teams. For example, you can explain to students that teamwork affords them opportunities to:
exchange ideas with peers, which is essential for developing critical thinking;[13]
learn and develop skills, such as interpersonal skills;[14][15]
prepare their skills for real-world experiences[15] such as those in the workplace);[4] and
relate to one another as co-constructors of knowledge in a cooperative (rather than a competitive) way that is more conducive to learning.[4][16]
It is recommended that instructors form teams, rather than letting students choose their teams, in order to limit cliques or relationship fall-out within groups.[17][15][2][6] Careful consideration of group size, diversity and work location (e.g., within or outside the classroom, in-person or online[4] can help lay the groundwork for productive teams.
Group size: Group size will vary depending on the goal and scope of the assignment.[18] Some educators recommend groups of three to four students,[2] while others suggest four to seven.[15][6] If teams are too small, there may not be an adequate diversity of ideas and abilities. If teams are too big, there may not be enough work to keep each member engaged in the assignment, and finding common time outside class to advance group projects can be challenging.[9]
Group diversity: You can survey the students (e.g., with a show of hands or a questionnaire) to elicit students’ backgrounds (e.g., field of study, interests, and work experience) so as to create diverse teams.[9] Alternatively, a more formal method, such as a survey, can be used (see Tools to support peer assessment of teamwork). Survey data can be gathered on paper or online. Online possibilities include Polling @ McGill, the Forms tool in Office 365 and the survey tool in myCourses. Other technology-supported solutions to address the logistics of forming groups are available. Request a consultation for further information.
In all cases, be intentional about how you form the groups: do so based on what you are hoping students will take away from the experience. Be sure to let students know why you are forming the teams and what criteria you are using to form the teams.[15] These explanations, along with your rationale for having students work in teams, may pre-empt students’ resistance to teamwork and increase their buy-in.
Storming and norming
Students will likely need guidance with how to function as a team and deal with interpersonal conflicts. The next two stages address these points.
Storming is a stage of teamwork when students struggle with interpersonal concerns, which may include conflict and disagreement about roles and responsibilities within the team.[11] Calling upon students to do PA can exacerbate these concerns. Instructors should be aware of potential issues:
Students may believe that existing student relationships of either friendship or enmity will inform the assessment of peers’ contributions to teamwork.[13]
If students are aware of the identity of the student who assessed them, this may lead students to fear retaliation. Whether this fear is justified or not, students may consequently assess one another more generously than they would otherwise (i.e., “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”).[7][13]
While students may be frustrated by an unreliable teammate, they may hesitate to use PA to raise the issue as they might see this as punitive.[19][20]
Such concerns impact a team’s ability to function effectively. Strategies such as carefully planning the teamwork assignment and using PA to gauge team members’ ability to work as a team can help to mitigate the potential for “storms.” These strategies may even result in teams skipping the storming stage entirely, such that students move directly from forming to norming with little or no interpersonal difficulty.
Norming is a stage of teamwork where students develop greater cohesiveness within their teams, clarify and adopt agreed-upon roles and responsibilities, and become comfortable expressing their points of view.[11] Instructors might ask students to do some PA in the norming stage, but before calling upon students to assess one another, a number of other strategies can be implemented to build team cohesiveness, thereby equipping students to engage in PA with confidence. For example, instructors can:
raise students’ awareness of the difference between working as a group and working as a team, as this information can help them better understand your expectations for their performance.
provide students with written guidelines about what they are expected to do and guide them in how to undertake the assignment.[13][15] For example:
be explicit about how the teamwork assignment is relevant to course content.[15]
give students tools, such as checklists or rubrics, to track their progress toward completing the assignment (see Tools for peer assessment of teamwork).
explain what qualities make for good team members, such as being prepared for team meetings and being willing to find ways to contribute to teamwork even if unable to attend a meeting.[21]
suggest team member roles and ask students to collectively decide which student will assume which role.[2]
ask students to describe how their own contribution to the team will fit with other team members’ contributions.
have students engage in team building activities so that they learn how to work together).[10] For example, task student teams with building the “best” tinker toy structure they can within 15 minutes, and then have a team spokesperson attempt to convince the rest of the class why the resulting structure is the best.[22] Even a short activity like this can surface the types of challenges students may encounter in more extended teamwork situations, such as poor time management and unequal participation. Another example is to have students create team names that reflect the assignment they are working on. Teams in a business course analyzing refrigeration companies created names such as: “We be Kuhl; Polar Bares; Nice Fellows on Ice; and Frozen Assets Unlimited.”[15]
provide time for students to write a document (a charter, contract, or agreement)[22][2][23] that articulates the team’s goals, the plan they will follow to achieve those goals, and the expectations for members’ participation[24] (see Tools for peer assessment of teamwork). Creating such a document can be an entry point for discussions of PA within the team, given that students may be asked to assess the very behaviours described in such a document. It can also ensure students have a common understanding of the assignment.[3] Instructors may wish to vet such documents prior to implementation.[25]
foster team cohesiveness by allowing time for students to do some in-class work together in addition to out-of-class work.[15] These in-class opportunities will allow you to observe how team dynamics are developing (e.g., the extent to which students are focused on the task at hand and participating equitably), and to see if there are any issues that need to be addressed.[9]
provide students with the opportunity to learn how to have productive discussions. Brookfield and Preskill[26] share 50 strategies that can be used to encourage discussion in groups of various sizes.
Despite best efforts to have students work harmoniously in teams, disagreements and uncooperative behaviors may arise. Norming therefore also involves providing students with strategies to address such issues.[13] For example, instructors can:
provide students with an email template for notifying them of a team problem[21] (see Tools for peer assessment of teamwork);
ensure that students have the time necessary to reflect upon the feedback, as “team feedback seems to be more effective when accompanied by a period of guided [reflection].”[3]
For cases where conflicts cannot be resolved, a process for asking or allowing a student to quit the team and either move to another team or work alone can be implemented.[2] This process involves a mediation session with the instructor and carefully documented communication among team members.
Performing
Performing is the stage of teamwork where students are truly working in concert to achieve the assignment goals. Issues regarding how students can work together productively have been addressed, and now, “group energy is channeled into the task” (p. 396).[11] Students engage in PA during the performing stage as a means of supporting effective teamwork throughout the time students are working to achieve the assignment goals.
Integrating peer assessment into teamwork
How can peer assessment be integrated into teamwork?
PA of teamwork can be integrated at different points throughout the time students are working together. For example, students can peer assess during storming to address unhelpful behaviour such as social loafing;[27][13][15][28] during norming to provide feedback on team members’ initial contributions; and during performing to foster interdependence and accountability.
In all cases, it is important that you make expectations for PA of teamwork explicit and visible.[29][2] Assessment criteria should be fair, observable, and closely related to the assignment goals.[30]
Criteria for assessing peers’ contributions to teamwork can be developed on your own or with student involvement.[30] Often, criteria address multiple aspects of student behaviours that contribute to positive group experiences and assignment completion, such as:[31][32][25]
presence (meeting attendance, dependability);
contributions (demonstrated quality of work and ideas shared, effort);
team skills (cooperation, contributions to a trusting team environment, ability to manage conflict, ability to set / work toward / meet group goals); and
communication (prompt, consistent, constructive).
If students develop the criteria, they will have to reflect on what behaviours related to working as a team they value. This reflection can lead students to a greater understanding of the criteria and to buy-in of PA altogether.[9] Instructors can provide final oversight and, if appropriate, approval of the criteria based on whether the desired goals of the assignment have been addressed and are appropriate.[30]
Once the criteria are determined, think about how and when you will ask students to provide feedback on peers’ performance in the team (e.g., part-way through the assignment or at the end). Your desired learning outcomes should inform your planning, but keep in mind that PA tasks should not take students an inordinate amount of time to complete and responses should be easy for you to compile.[33]
Students can provide feedback on peers’ contributions in a variety of ways. A number of strategies are listed here, and specific examples appear in Tools for peer assessment of teamwork. Students can:
fill in a numerical scale (e.g., 1-5) for each criterion and justify the numerical ratings with feedback comments.[2][34][35] Baker[33] also provides a thorough summary of various rating scale possibilities (pp. 187-188);
address guiding questions, which can be as simple as (1) “Who worked hard in your group and why did you choose this person?” and (2) “Who needs to work harder next time, and why did you choose this person?”;[36]
write a brief assessment of the overall contributions of each team member;[31]
write a short reflection (~1/2 page) in which they discuss team dynamics and the progress on the team assignment;[34]
identify which team member made particularly strong contributions in each category of a rubric;[31]
keep project diaries that the instructor reads[33][21] as a means of documenting their own and their peers’ contributions to specific components of the assignment; and
divide a set number of points among group members to reflect their contributions, such that no two group members receive the same number of points. This may be appropriate in circumstances where you are concerned that students will give an equal number of points to all team members in exchange for the same treatment from their peers,[31] and it instead encourages students to carefully consider teammates’ relative contributions.[33][31] This requirement may prove problematic in situations where teammates have truly contributed equally and may therefore need to be reconsidered.
Plan for students to assess peers’ contributions more than once so that they can practice their PA skills.[3]
Grading peer assessment
Should peer assessment count towards an assignment grade and if so, to what extent? Read about approaches to grading peer assessment.
Tools for peer assessment of teamwork
Access a curated list of tools to support peer assessment and teamwork, including tools to support students with working as a team.
Gathering feedback on progress
How will you know if the teamwork assignment is going according to plan?
Plan to gather student feedback several times over the course of a team assignment on how well things are going.[15] Such feedback can be formal (e.g., a mid-course evaluation) or informal (e.g., an in-class discussion).[13] Explain to students that the feedback will allow you and them to identify teamwork issues early on so that they can be addressed before they negatively affect team members’ motivation and before students submit the completed assignment.[29][3] This feedback may also improve the experience for future students as it may help you hone your skill at implementing teamwork and PA of the teamwork experience in your courses.
Considering the validity of peer assessment
How valid is assessment of performance by peers compared to traditional forms of assessment?
A number of variables affect the validity of assessment by peers (as compared to assessment by instructors). One survey of research studies[13] found that both students and instructors are most consistent in assessing student work when they focus on assessing a specific academic task, and are provided with specific criteria to consider.
What’s next?
If you have questions about how to use PA to make teamwork work or simply want to get feedback on the design and implementation of your existing PA assignments, we invite you to submit a request for an individual consultation, where our team can also help you with technology-supported solutions that address the logistics of PA.
References
[1]Pursel, B. (n.d.a). Groups vs teams. Penn State University. Retrieved January 14, 2025
[6]Sibley, J., & Ostafichuk, P. (2014). Getting started with team-based learning. Stylus.
[10]Weimer, M. (2014). 10 recommendations for improving group work. Faculty Focus.
[11]Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.
[18]Pursel, B. (n.d.b). Team configuration. Penn State University. Retrieved January 14, 2025
[21]Creelman, D. (2017). Using groups and teams: A practical approach to forming, using, and troubleshooting groups and team. Workshop at Concordia University, Montreal, QC.
McGill University is on land which has served and continues to serve as a site of meeting and exchange amongst Indigenous peoples, including the Haudenosaunee and Anishinabeg nations. Teaching and Academic Programs acknowledges and thanks the diverse Indigenous peoples whose footsteps mark this territory on which peoples of the world now gather. This land acknowledgment is shared as a starting point to provide context for further learning and action.
McLennan Library Building 3415 McTavish Street Suite MS-12 (ground level), Montreal, Quebec H3A 0C8 | mcgill.ca/tap