Group Project, Individual Grade
Four students - Tom, Aisha, Ben and Chloe - run a 6-week project on food waste at their school. Tom leads research, Aisha designs the survey, Ben builds the presentation, and Chloe coordinates the timetable. In week 5 Ben stops attending, citing family stress, and Chloe quietly absorbs his slides. At the end, the group submits one shared portfolio. Their teacher must assign individual grades and asks each student to submit a short 'my contribution' statement. Tom writes two pages; Aisha writes three lines; Ben submits nothing; Chloe writes 'did Ben's part and mine.' The teacher must decide how to weigh the shared portfolio against these uneven statements.
1. How should the teacher weigh the shared portfolio against the individual statements when assigning grades? Identify the risks in each source of evidence.
Read the worked answer
The teacher should treat neither source as decisive on its own.
Shared portfolio - strengths and risks:
- It shows the finished product and collaboration, but it cannot show who did what.
- It may over-credit Ben (his slides are in) and under-credit Chloe (her extra work looks like part of the whole).
Individual statements - strengths and risks:
- They capture self-reported contribution but are uneven and gameable: Tom's length signals effort but may inflate; Aisha's three lines may undersell real work.
- Ben's silence is not proof of zero contribution - it may reflect the same stress that caused his absence.
Judgement: The teacher should triangulate - use the portfolio for outcomes, statements for claimed roles, and independent verification (mentor notes, peer accounts, drafts with timestamps) for contested claims. Grades should reflect demonstrated contribution, with a documented process for verifying Ben's situation rather than inferring from silence. The defensible principle is evidence-based fairness, not equal treatment of unequal evidence.
2. Chloe did Ben's work without agreement. Should the teacher credit Chloe for that work, and how should Ben's absence be handled?
Read the worked answer
This is a genuine judgement call with competing principles.
Crediting Chloe:
- She did the work, so evidence of learning exists and should be recognised.
- But absorbing a peer's task without agreement can mask a group failure and reward silent over-functioning. Crediting her fully without comment risks normalising unsustainable workloads.
A defensible position: credit Chloe for the skills demonstrated in completing the slides, and record that she took on unplanned responsibility - but note the coordination breakdown so it is not treated as a model solution.
Handling Ben's absence:
- Absence is not automatically zero effort. The teacher should seek context (with appropriate privacy) before judging.
- If Ben contributed earlier and the absence was unavoidable, partial credit for his earlier work may be fair.
- If he genuinely disengaged, the grade should reflect missing evidence, not punishment.
The principle: grade demonstrated learning, verify before inferring, and avoid letting either silent contribution or silent absence distort the record.