Shared journal, separate judgements
A Year 12 class builds a 3 m × 2 m sensory garden for a local aged-care home as a Practical Exploration program. Four students share the build. At submission, Jonah and Priya provide identical 800-word process journals and the same six photographs. Attendance records show Priya attended all six build days; Jonah attended three, including the design day. Their mentor supplied one combined reference praising 'the group.' Jonah says the journal was a group document and that he did design work at home. The teacher must make individual judgements against the performance standards, which require evidence of each student's practical application and capability development. There are five school days before results are entered.
1. What is the assessment problem, and why can't the teacher simply divide the group's result?
Read the worked answer
The problem is individual accountability. The performance standards are applied to each student, so identical journals and shared photographs cannot establish what Jonah or Priya each did, decided, or learned. Priya's full attendance is relevant but not sufficient; attendance is not capability. Jonah's three absences mean the group journal cannot be treated as his personal record without independent corroboration. The combined mentor reference compounds the problem because it praises 'the group' and does not attribute actions.
Dividing the group result is also indefensible. It would assume equal contribution, which the evidence does not show, and it would punish or reward one student for the other's work. Absence is not proof of low achievement, and presence is not proof of high achievement. The issue is a missing evidence trail for both students, not a missing group product.
2. Recommend a five-day process for gathering individual evidence and making defensible judgements.
Read the worked answer
Day 1: Write to both students explaining that the group journal is shared evidence, not personal evidence, and request an individual contribution statement with dates, tasks, and decisions, plus one artefact only they can explain. Day 2: Interview each student separately for 10 minutes, using the other's claims as prompts; keep dated notes. Day 3: Ask the mentor for specific observations per student; if unavailable, record that limitation. Day 4: Cross-check claims against attendance, artefacts, messages, and photographs; grade only what is verifiable. Day 5: Enter judgements and give feedback identifying the evidence used.
If Jonah can evidence home design work with dated files or messages, it can count. If not, his judgement must rest on the three days he attended. Do not penalise Priya for Jonah's gaps or reward Jonah for the group's output.