The Group's Shared Source File
Four students in a school-assessed multimedia task share a single source file for a promotional video. The task requires each student to submit an individual product and a reflection. The group agrees that each member will edit a different section, then combine them. Two weeks before submission, the teacher discovers that one student, Ben, has done almost no editing but has been present at meetings and contributed ideas. The shared file's version history shows Ben made only two small edits. The other three students have done substantial work. Ben argues that idea contribution counts as work and that the group agreed to share the final product. The teacher must decide how to grade Ben and whether the shared final video can count as Ben's individual product. The task sheet says the product must be 'substantially the student's own work' and the reflection must explain the student's own contribution.
1. Decide whether the shared final video can count as Ben's individual product and justify the decision.
Read the worked answer
The shared final video cannot count as Ben's individual product in full, because the task sheet requires the product to be substantially the student's own work. The version history shows Ben made only two small edits, so the video is overwhelmingly the work of the other three students. Idea contribution is valuable but is not the same as producing the product, and the criteria assess the product and the reflection on the student's own contribution. The teacher should credit Ben for the ideas and meeting participation where the criteria allow (for example, in the reflection on collaboration), but must not award product marks for work Ben did not do. The teacher should document the version-history evidence, explain the decision to Ben, and apply the same standard to all groups.
2. Explain what Ben should do in the remaining two weeks and how the teacher should support him without compromising integrity.
Read the worked answer
Ben should produce his own individual product, or a clearly identified individual component substantial enough to meet the 'own work' requirement, and write a reflection that honestly describes his contribution, including the limits of his editing. The teacher can support him by clarifying the minimum evidence required, offering a revised timeline, and directing him to the criteria so he knows what to produce. The teacher should not supply content or edit the work for him. If time is too short for a full product, the teacher should check whether school policy allows an extension or a modified submission, and apply it consistently. The teacher should also review the group task design so future tasks build in individual accountability, such as individual edit logs or staged checkpoints, to prevent a repeat of this situation.