The Group Project Contract
You are the student lead on a four-person interprofessional project worth 40% of a unit mark. Two weeks before submission, one member, Dev, has attended 2 of 8 meetings and produced none of his allocated section. He emails asking you to add his name to that section, saying he 'did the reading' and that the others 'had it covered anyway'. Another member, Ali, has completed Dev's section herself and is visibly angry; she says that if Dev's name goes on the cover page she will report the group to the unit coordinator. The rubric explicitly rewards evidence of individual contribution, and your signed group contract states that non-contributors are named in an appendix. No one has raised the issue with Dev directly.
1. What is the most appropriate next step, and what are the two most tempting but inappropriate alternatives?
Read the worked answer
Most appropriate next step: speak to Dev directly, promptly and factually - set out what the contract requires, what he has and has not submitted, and offer a defined, achievable task with a deadline that still fits the two weeks (for example, drafting the limitations section and reviewing Ali's draft). Confirm the conversation in writing to the group.
Why: the issue is unresolved partly because nobody has told Dev the standard he is being measured against. Addressing it directly is the least adversarial step that could still fix the problem, and it gives him a genuine opportunity to contribute, which is what the rubric actually rewards.
Tempting but inappropriate:
- Adding his name to keep the peace. This misrepresents authorship on assessed work; it deceives the marker and is unfair to Ali, who would be graded alongside a false attribution.
- Going straight to the unit coordinator or letting Ali report him. Premature: no direct conversation has occurred, and escalation forecloses the chance of a working group. It also risks the group looking unable to manage itself.
A third poor option is unilaterally deleting Dev from the cover page - that is a marking decision that belongs to the unit coordinator, not to you.
2. Dev misses the new deadline. What should happen now, and how should the appendix be worded?
Read the worked answer
What should happen: apply the contract as written, and tell Dev and the group that you are doing so. Notify the unit coordinator before submission - not as a complaint, but to flag that the group is relying on the contribution clause and asking whether she wants evidence submitted with the report. Record actual contributions accurately.
Appendix wording - factual, dated, non-pejorative:
'Section 3 (Discussion) was drafted by Ali Rahman, after the section allocated to Dev Okafor was not submitted by the agreed internal deadline of 14 March (agreed 28 February; reminder sent 7 March). Dev Okafor attended 2 of 8 group meetings and contributed feedback on the draft introduction on 10 March. All other sections as per the allocation table.'
Why word it this way:
- Dates and specific actions, not adjectives ('lazy', 'unreliable') - the appendix is an evidence record, not a character reference.
- It credits what he did do, which makes the record credible and fair.
- It leaves the marking judgement to the coordinator instead of trying to impose a penalty.
This is the distinction the exam rewards: honesty about contribution is required; punishment is not yours to administer.
3. Ali says that if you follow the contract she will still report the group, because 'the whole group should not be punished for one person'. How should you respond?
Read the worked answer
Response: acknowledge her concerns as legitimate, show her the contract and the factual appendix, and explain that the appendix exists precisely so that the group is not penalised - it is the mechanism that lets the marker separate her contribution from Dev's. Offer to attend the meeting with the coordinator together so the account is consistent. Do not ask her to stay silent.
Reasoning:
- She has a right to raise it. Trying to talk a group member out of reporting a fairness concern is itself a integrity problem, and would put you in the position of managing information rather than resolving it.
- But her stated fear is probably mistaken - and that is worth testing rather than asserting. The relevant question is what the rubric and the contribution clause actually say, which you can check with the coordinator rather than guess.
- Consistency matters more than unity. If Ali reports and you have already notified the coordinator with the same factual appendix, there is one coherent account. If you have quietly trimmed the appendix to keep the peace, the two accounts will conflict and the group's credibility - not just Dev's - is damaged.
- Separate the two issues: Dev's contribution is a factual matter; Ali's anger is a process matter. Address the second by improving the process (earlier checkpoints, written minutes, allocation table), not by altering the first.