The Group Folio Where One Student Did Nothing
A school-assessed task requires students to work in groups of four to produce a Chinese-language presentation and a written reflection. One group has a student, Lin, who attended only two of six planning meetings, contributed no slides, and missed the rehearsal. The other three students completed the work and, to protect the group, added Lin's name to the title slide and assigned Lin a short speaking part that Lin then delivered poorly on the day. The teacher must assign individual marks. The task descriptors reward content, language use, and collaboration. The group asks the teacher not to penalise Lin because 'it would be awkward'. Lin's parent emails asking why Lin's mark is lower than the group's average.
1. Explain how the teacher should separate individual from group achievement in awarding marks.
Read the worked answer
The teacher must mark each student against the descriptors using that student's own evidence.
- Content and language use: Lin's evidence is the short speaking part and whatever written contribution exists. If Lin produced no written reflection, there is no evidence for that component - the mark reflects absence of evidence, not punishment.
- Collaboration: This is the criterion most directly affected. Missing four of six meetings and the rehearsal is observable evidence of low collaboration. The descriptor should be applied as written.
- Group products: The presentation slides are group evidence, but Lin's individual contribution to them is nil. The teacher should not award Lin the group's content mark for work Lin did not do.
The group's request to avoid awkwardness is not a valid reason to inflate a mark. Marks must be defensible and comparable with other students who did the work individually.
2. Draft the substance of the reply to Lin's parent, justifying the mark without breaching privacy.
Read the worked answer
Substance of the reply:
- Explain that the task is marked individually, even though students worked in groups, and that each student's mark reflects their own contribution against published descriptors.
- Note that the descriptors cover content, language use and collaboration, and that participation in planning and rehearsal is part of the assessed collaboration.
- State that Lin's mark reflects the evidence available for Lin's own work - without disclosing other students' marks or naming them.
- Offer to show the parent the task sheet and descriptors and to discuss what Lin could do differently next time.
- Acknowledge the parent's concern respectfully and invite a meeting.
Avoid: comparing Lin to named peers, revealing the group's marks, or implying the group was penalised. The justification rests on Lin's evidence against the descriptors, which is sufficient and privacy-safe.