The Group Piece With One Author
A group of five students must create a 4-minute ensemble work. One member, who has the most dance training, has choreographed almost all of it, set the counts, and corrected the others in rehearsal. The other four report feeling like 'backing dancers' and have stopped offering ideas. The work is technically clean but the assessment rewards collaborative creation and individual contribution, and the group has three weeks left. The trained member says the group 'works better this way' because decisions are faster.
1. Analyse the trade-off the group is making, and assess whether the trained member's claim is correct.
Read the worked answer
The group is trading creative ownership for speed. The trained member's claim that the group 'works better this way' is true only on the dimension of efficiency: decisions are faster and the movement is technically clean. It is false on the dimensions the assessment rewards, namely collaborative creation and individual contribution, and it is already producing costs, since four members have stopped offering ideas and feel like backing dancers. Those costs compound: disengaged dancers contribute less in performance, and the work loses the range of ideas the group could generate. The claim also hides a distribution problem, because the person who benefits from the arrangement is the one asserting it works. A defensible judgement separates efficiency from quality: the current process is efficient but under-delivers on the criteria, and with three weeks left there is time to change the process without abandoning the technical standard.
2. Propose a concrete process change for the remaining three weeks that redistributes authorship without wrecking the technical quality.
Read the worked answer
A workable change is to divide the 4 minutes into sections and give each member authorship of one section, with the trained member acting as an editor and outside eye rather than the sole author. Each member brings material for their section, the group tests it, and the trained member gives feedback on clarity and safety instead of replacing the material. Keep a shared count sheet so the sections join cleanly, and hold a short check-in each rehearsal where every member states one idea, which structurally prevents the silence that has set in. The trained member's technical eye is valuable and should be retained, but in an editorial role. This redistributes authorship while protecting quality, because the trained member still catches problems, and it gives the other four a stake that should show in performance. The group should agree the process explicitly so it is not quietly abandoned under time pressure.
3. How should the group evidence individual contribution for assessment, and what risk should they manage?
Read the worked answer
The group should keep a simple record: a shared document logging who authored which section, dated rehearsal notes showing revisions and who proposed them, and short video clips of works-in-progress so the development of each member's material is visible. Each member could also write a brief reflection on their contribution and what they learned from editing others' work. The risk to manage is that the record becomes a paper exercise disconnected from the actual process, or that it exposes the earlier imbalance without showing the correction. The group should therefore record honestly, including the shift in process, so the evidence shows development rather than a polished fiction. The trained member should be credited for editorial work, not erased, since the assessment rewards contribution, not egalitarian appearance. Evidence gathered across the three weeks is more persuasive than a single end-point summary.