Judging Teamwork Evidence in a Group Project
Three students complete a group project to build a small sensor-and-display system. The team submits one report and one working prototype. The report lists all three names but does not identify who did what. The prototype works. During a brief interview, Student A describes the wiring and code confidently, Student B describes the enclosure and testing, and Student C gives vague answers and says 'I helped with the soldering'. The assessor's checklist has criteria for individual technical skills, teamwork, and documentation. The assessor must decide what evidence can be credited to each student and whether Student C is competent.
1. Explain why a single group report and working prototype are insufficient evidence for individual competence.
Read the worked answer
A group product shows that the team produced a result, but it does not show what each student can do independently. The rules of evidence require authenticity: the assessor must be satisfied the evidence is the student's own work. A report with three names and no task breakdown cannot establish who wrote which section, who wired which part, or who debugged which fault.
The working prototype is similarly ambiguous. It proves the team succeeded, not that each member can perform the required skills. Student C's vague answers and 'I helped with the soldering' do not demonstrate the technical criteria or the documentation criteria.
The assessor should treat the group submission as partial evidence only and seek individual evidence: task logs, version control records, signed contributions, or a short individual practical task.
2. Propose how the assessor should gather individual evidence and what would be needed before deeming Student C competent.
Read the worked answer
The assessor should:
- Ask each student to submit an individual task log with dates and specific contributions.
- Review version control or file metadata where available to confirm authorship.
- Conduct a short individual practical task for each student, such as wiring a sub-circuit or explaining and modifying a code section.
- Ask each student to answer questions about the parts they claim to have done.
For Student C, the assessor needs direct evidence of the technical skills and documentation criteria. The vague interview answer is not enough. A short practical task, such as soldering a joint to standard and explaining the connection, plus a written explanation of the section they contributed to, would generate the missing evidence. If Student C cannot demonstrate the criteria individually, the assessor should record a gap and arrange further training or assessment rather than crediting the group result. Teamwork criteria can be evidenced by peer feedback and observation, but technical criteria must be shown individually.