The Group Presentation and the Silent Member
Four students must deliver a 10-minute group presentation worth 20% of the course grade. The group has met three times. Priya has done most of the research; Daniel built the slides; Aisha has written the speaking notes; and Marcus has attended once, contributed nothing, and missed the last two meetings. Two days before the presentation, Marcus messages the group: 'I'll do the introduction and conclusion-those are the easy parts-and you can fill in the middle.' The group must decide how to respond and how to divide the remaining work fairly. The teacher has said that group members may be graded individually if contributions are documented, but has not explained how.
1. Evaluate Marcus's proposal. What is fair and unfair about it, and what should the group consider before agreeing?
Read the worked answer
Marcus's offer is unfair on its face: he proposes to take the two shortest, lowest-effort segments (introduction and conclusion) after missing two of three meetings, while the members who did the research, slides, and notes carry the substantive middle. Fairness here is about proportional contribution to the shared grade, not about who speaks first. The group should also consider practical risk: a member who has not seen the research cannot deliver an accurate introduction, and an uncoordinated conclusion may misstate the group's argument. Before agreeing, the group should ask what Marcus can actually deliver, whether he will attend a rehearsal, and whether his segment will be written by him or by others. Agreeing to 'easy parts' without conditions rewards absence and shifts risk onto the members who did the work.
2. The teacher allows individual grading if contributions are documented. Recommend a concrete course of action for the group and justify it.
Read the worked answer
A defensible plan: (1) Reply to Marcus in writing with a specific, achievable task-for example, preparing and rehearsing a 90-second introduction based on the group's notes-and a deadline before the presentation. (2) Require one rehearsal so his segment can be checked for accuracy. (3) Document contributions from the start: meeting dates, who attended, who produced which artifact, and what Marcus submits. (4) If he does not deliver, ask the teacher in advance how individual grading will be applied, rather than raising it after the fact. Justification: this gives Marcus a genuine chance to contribute, protects the group's grade from an unprepared speaker, and creates an evidence trail the teacher can use. It also avoids the two failure modes-silently absorbing his share, or excluding him without documentation that would support individual grading.