Group Project Marks: Whose Work Is It?
Pak Hendra assigns a group presentation for the school-assessed Indonesian beginners course. Groups of four must present a 6-minute talk in Indonesian about a local environmental issue, with each student speaking for roughly 90 seconds. Group C has four members: Sari, Tom, Lina, and Ben. After the presentation, Pak Hendra reviews the recordings and sees that Sari spoke for about 3 minutes, Tom for about 2 minutes, Lina for 40 seconds, and Ben for 20 seconds. Lina's section was largely read from a phone screen; Ben mostly nodded and said "Setuju". The group's overall content was strong. Sari's parents argue that because the group scored well, all students should receive the same mark. The task sheet said individual contribution would be assessed.
1. Explain why awarding identical marks to all four students would be problematic, referring to the evidence in the scenario.
Read the worked answer
Identical marks would be invalid because the task sheet explicitly states that individual contribution is assessed, and the evidence shows very unequal contributions:
- Sari spoke ~3 minutes and Tom ~2 minutes, both well above the 90-second guideline.
- Lina spoke ~40 seconds and read from a screen, which does not demonstrate spontaneous or prepared spoken Indonesian at the expected level.
- Ben spoke ~20 seconds and contributed only "Setuju", which is insufficient evidence of individual speaking performance.
Giving everyone the group mark would mean Ben and Lina receive credit for speaking they did not do. It would also be unfair to Sari and Tom, whose individual performance is obscured by the group score. Fairness requires that the mark reflect each student's demonstrated achievement against the standards, not the group's aggregate output.
2. Describe how Pak Hendra should resolve the marking and what he should communicate to the students and to Sari's parents.
Read the worked answer
Marking resolution: Pak Hendra should award marks based on each student's individual segment and interaction, using the recording as evidence. He may include a modest group component only if the task sheet specified one; otherwise the individual evidence governs. He should document the time allocations and the nature of each contribution (e.g., Lina reading, Ben's minimal speech).
Communication to students: Explain the individual criterion clearly, give each student specific feedback on their segment, and offer Lina and Ben a structured opportunity to demonstrate the speaking standard (e.g., a short individual oral) so they are not penalised for a group process failure without a chance to show achievement.
Communication to Sari's parents: Acknowledge the strong group content, then explain that the task sheet assessed individual contribution, that marks must reflect each student's own evidence, and that the school applies the same rule to every group. Keep the tone respectful and factual, and refer to the published task sheet rather than making an ad hoc decision.