Group Presentation Marks and a Dominant Partner
In a school assessment task worth 20% of the grade, three Chinese continuers students - Wei, Anna and Priya - deliver a 12-minute group presentation on environmental policy in China. The task sheet requires each student to speak for roughly equal time and to be assessed individually on language and content. During the presentation, Wei speaks for about seven minutes, answers most audience questions, and supplies vocabulary when Anna hesitates. Anna speaks for about three minutes and reads largely from notes. Priya speaks for about two minutes and contributes one detailed, well-expressed section on air-quality data. The teacher's rough notes say "Wei strong, Anna weak, Priya good content but quiet." The teacher must now allocate individual marks and write a defensible justification for each student.
1. Explain how the teacher should decide each student's individual mark, given that the task requires individual assessment within a group format.
Read the worked answer
The teacher must separate each student's individual performance from the group's overall effect. The criteria should be applied to what each student actually demonstrated: language range and accuracy, content knowledge, and interaction.
Wei demonstrated strong language and confident interaction, but part of his seven minutes came at the expense of others - answering questions directed at teammates and supplying vocabulary for Anna. That is a group-process issue; it should not inflate Wei's mark beyond what his own language and content justify, and it should not be used to penalise him either. His mark should reflect his demonstrated language and content, with a note that his dominance limited others' opportunities.
Anna's three minutes, read from notes, give limited evidence of spontaneous language. She should be marked on what she demonstrated, not on the group's overall quality. Priya's two minutes contained a detailed, well-expressed section; a short but high-quality contribution should be credited for its quality, while recognising the limited evidence of interaction.
The teacher should record the specific evidence behind each mark - time spoken, examples of language, content depth - rather than relying on the rough notes, which are too vague to defend.
2. The teacher worries that marking Wei highly rewards dominating the group. How should the teacher resolve this tension in the written justification?
Read the worked answer
The tension is real but resolvable by keeping two judgments distinct: the quality of Wei's individual performance and the fairness of the group process. The mark should measure only the first. Penalising Wei for dominance would be marking him against a criterion not in the task sheet; rewarding him for teammates' silence would also be wrong.
The justification should therefore state clearly what Wei himself demonstrated - for example, range of vocabulary, accurate complex sentences, ability to respond to unscripted questions - and then note separately that his dominance reduced the evidence available for Anna and Priya. That note belongs in the moderation record and in feedback, not in Wei's mark.
The teacher should also consider whether the task design allowed equal participation to be evidenced. If the group format systematically prevented Anna from showing her ability, the teacher may need to gather additional evidence, such as a short individual follow-up, rather than inferring low ability from a constrained performance. The written justification should be specific, evidence-based and consistent across all three students.