08832323.2011.638680
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Evaluation of MBA Group Work: A Case Study
of Graduate Student Experiences and Perceptions
of Positive Group Work Outcomes
Patricia D. Rafferty
To cite this article: Patricia D. Rafferty (2013) The Evaluation of MBA Group Work: A Case Study
of Graduate Student Experiences and Perceptions of Positive Group Work Outcomes, Journal
of Education for Business, 88:1, 43-50, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.638680
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.638680
Published online: 19 Nov 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 261
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:55
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 88: 43–50, 2013
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.638680
The Evaluation of MBA Group Work: A Case Study
of Graduate Student Experiences and Perceptions
of Positive Group Work Outcomes
Patricia D. Rafferty
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
The article forms part of an exploration into how graduate business students experience group
work. A single-case, embedded study was conducted in 2010–2011, and reveals new insight and
understanding into the manner in which master’s of business administration students perceive
evaluation methods of their group work assignments and how these methods contribute to their
perception of positive group work outcomes.
Keywords: business school teaching methods, graduate student experiences, group work,
group work outcomes, MBA teams
INTRODUCTION
Group work is widely recognized within many academic
disciplines as an important pedagogical tool when instructing graduate students (Drake, Goldsmith, & Strachan, 2006;
Gatfield, 1999; Hughes & Jones, 2011; Lejk & Wyvill, 2001;
Sharp, 2006). Working in groups enables learners to leverage
the strengths of fellow classmates while experimenting and
investigating their own abilities within a safe, educational
environment (Snyder, 2009; Waters-Hasler & Napier, 2002).
Similarly, working in groups allows students to assess and
hone their teambuilding skills for future use in the workplace.
This is evident in the manner in which employers require
their associates to have teamwork skills and the competency
to utilize groups in order to efficiently and effectively achieve
organizational goals. In part, employers expect these skills
to be learned and acquired within degree granting programs
(Chapman, Meuter, Toy, & Wright, 2010.)
For educators who utilize group work, this teaching strategy is considered an effective and efficient tool across multiple fields and disciplines within higher education (Drake
et al., 2006; Murray & Lonne, 2006; Summers, Beretvas,
Svinicki, & Gorin, 2005; Waters-Hasler & Napier, 2002).
This is evident in the manner in which group work skills and
Correspondence should be addressed to Patricia D. Rafferty, Saint
Joseph’s University, Erivan K. Haub School of Business, 5600 City
Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19131, USA. E-mail: patricia.rafferty@sju.edu
overall team effectiveness are considered to be key learning
objectives within many higher educational settings (Hughes
& Jones, 2011).
In order to provide descriptive data on the phenomenon of
group work and its implications for the evaluation of group
work assignments in higher education, here I summarize the
results of a single case, embedded study that was conducted to
describe the manner in which graduate business students experience group work. The objective of this exploration was to
add to the knowledge base by documenting authentic student
experiences with group work and how master’s of business
administration (MBA) students view the assessment process
within this paradigm (Yin, 2003). In addition to understanding how graduate business students experience group work,
the outcome of this investigation provides new insight into
the manner in which part-time MBA students view present
group work assessment techniques and the manner in which
these evaluation methods promote the perception of a positive
group work outcome. Within this context, a positive group
work outcome is defined as student perception that maximizes satisfaction with the group work process, the learning
of focal course material, or the learning about the group work
process.
Terms, such as teamwork, group work, cooperative learning, and collaborative learning “are often used synonymously” (Drake et al., 2006, p. 33). Regardless of the specific
terminology, this pedagogical method is commonly understood to be the process in which small groups of interdependent individuals share responsibility for the outcome of
semester-long course tasks and projects (Strom & Strom,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
44
P. D. RAFFERTY
2002) and many educators accept this paradigm as a collaborative approach that involves students working cooperatively
(Delucchi, 2006). Stephen Sharp (2006) indicated “the use of
group work, in which three or more students jointly produce
a piece of work for summative assessment, is an established
aspect of teaching and learning in higher education” (p. 329).
Literature on this topic demonstrates multiple benefits of using group work as a pedagogical tool in higher education,
including: “(1) students learn teamwork skills, (2) students
improve their critical thinking skills, and (3) students gain
more insight about a particular topic” (Payne, Monk-Turner,
Smith, & Sumter, 2006, p. 441).
Such benefits have been documented across multiple academic disciplines within higher education. For example,
studies of undergraduate students participating in group work
within science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
courses have generally demonstrated greater student persistence, reported more positive attitude toward learning, and
typically showed greater academic achievement when compared with students who did not work in groups within similar courses (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999). Similarly,
group work and collaborative learning activities have been
shown to improve student grades and increase student engagement in courses using this pedagogical approach (Lo &
Prohaska, 2011).
However, these conclusions are not universally supported.
For example, other studies have reported that group work
has not been conclusively shown to support greater academic achievement in a variety of disciplines within higher
education. The fundamental assumption that team projects
improve learning outcomes is under-researched and it is
widely accepted that further studies are necessary on the
efficacy of group projects within a variety of academic areas
within higher education (Bacon, 2005; Colliver, Feltovich, &
Verhulst, 2003; Delucchi, 2006; Lightner, Bober, & Willie,
2007; Thomchick, 1997).
These contrasting findings on the group work paradigm
within higher educational settings are not uncommon and
are often a result of judgments frequently based on subjective, anecdotal observations from students or faculty (Ashraf,
2004; Delucchi, 2006). Additionally, existing literature on
group work is so vast that multiple genres exist, further
exacerbating the lack of a common vocabulary regarding
this paradigm. For example, leading theorists on group work
commonly refer to cooperative learning as structured, group
learning activities and projects inside and outside the classroom, whereas collaborative learning groups tend to center
on unstructured tasks and projects and is founded on the
concept that knowledge is subjective and generated by the
interactions between group members. However, these constructs are so closely related that not all literature concurs on
the difference (Bacon, 2005). Nevertheless, collaborative and
cooperative group models tend to focus on mutually acquired
learning goals and the achievement of group tasks. For the
purpose of this study, group work includes cooperative and
collaborative group work involving summative assessment
(Bacon, 2005; Michaelsen & Black, 1994; Slavin, 1988).
Although group work for business students often share
various tenets found within the collaborative and cooperative
group project paradigm, Bacon (2005) explained that traditional business student group projects typically focus on the
completion of a specific, semester-long task and frequently
diverges from collaborative and cooperative models in some
key aspects:
In business classes, the typical student group project differs
in some important ways from the prototypical peer-learning
task. On business projects, students jointly produce a “deliverable” of some sort, such as a written report or group
presentation. Each member of the group then often receives
the same reward, typically the same grade. Thus, a group goal
exists; however often there is little if any formal individual
accountability. (pp. 252–253)
Based on this commonly accepted description of group work
in the graduate business environment, the underpinnings of
the group work paradigm in this context are still generally
accepted to be closely aligned with collaborative and cooperative learning in that students work together to accomplish
a common task for summative assessment (Gillies, 2000;
Johnson & Johnson, 1988; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993)
However, a review of the literature on group work within
higher education, particularly research regarding group work
in business schools, provides some insight when examined
within the framework of collaborative and cooperative learning. It reveals distinct differences that become evident, principally when examined through the interactions between
students and instructors. Perhaps most significantly, group
work with traditional business students differs from the commonly accepted collaborative and cooperative group environments by the lack of systematic guidance and regular
support mechanisms provided to students by those professors assigning team projects (Ashraf, 2004; Bolton, 1999;
Johnson & Johnson, 1988). As a result, students and course
instructors sometimes differ in their judgment of a positive
group work experience (Chapman et al., 2010). For example,
course instructors may oblige students to support their less
competent fellow group members. This may work well in
cross-functional groups, where the group’s combined efforts
are able to leverage each student’s strengths and expertise to
achieve the objective of the task. However, this is problematic
when cross-functional groups are not used (Edwards, 2010).
As a result, students are often relegated to episodes of
trial and error during group work; thus, many students experience only the frustrations and pitfalls of group work, instead of the many possible benefits (Bolton, 1999; Yamane,
1996). Therefore, students often report negative perceptions
of group work. For example, Payne et al. (2006) conducted
a survey of 143 college students who had recently completed a semester-long group project. This study revealed
THE EVALUATION OF MBA GROUP WORK
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
that 40% of students had reported being part of a team
where some members contributed little or nothing at all. Additionally, one third of respondents reported that they did not
look forward to future group work, group members did not
necessarily learn from one another, and they did not recommend the use of group work for future classes. However, not
all student perceptions on group work were entirely negative.
This study also found that approximately 85% of students reported that the participation in group work will be beneficial
to them in the workplace, while approximately 97% considered themselves to have contributed to the group project in a
meaningful way (Payne et al., 2006).
Literature Review
Given these circumstances, the evaluation and grading of
group work on the graduate level is often problematic
(Bolton, 1999; Payne et al., 2006; Yamane, 1996). Nevertheless, at the conclusion of group work, instructors must
provide final assessments of the finished group work assignment (Hughes & Jones, 2011; Strijbos, Narciss, &
Dunnebier, 2010; Thomchick, 1997). Within the context
of higher education, the most familiar category of group
work assessment takes the form of student evaluations for
summative or formative purposes. Typically, summative assessment involves reviewing, categorizing, and making judgments about a student’s achievement or ability at a fixed time
for recording and reporting functions. On the other hand,
formative assessment is typically considered an evaluation
and appraisal of a student’s achievement or ability at various stages to facilitate the learning process (Bastick, 1999;
Harlen, 2005; Lejk & Wyvill, 2001; Sharp, 2006). Although
these two forms of assessment techniques are not always
mutually exclusive (Harlen), the vast majority of assessment
methods for group work are summative and “group work by
its very nature favors the award of a grade to a group of students collectively rather than grades awarded to individual
students” (Sharp, p. 330).
However, the use of summative student assessment
in group work has significant implications. For example,
Thomchick (1997) explained,
One concern when using any type of group assessment is fair
assessment. When individuals combine efforts to produce a
group product, judgment is made on the final product, and it
is usually difficult for the assessor to know how much each
individual contributed to it. (p. 203)
One way to avoid this pitfall is the use of assessment
triangulation. This is a method where the faculty utilizes
an assessment structure that allows for both individual and
group grading elements. “By using multiple measures, or
triangulation, the instructor can construct a more complete
picture of the individual participant of each group member”
45
(Norman, Rose, & Lehmann, 2004, p. 10), thus encouraging
full participation by each group member.
However, an assessment approach that seeks to identify
individual student contribution is not universally supported
because it deviates from the primary objective of group
work, which is to work cooperatively and collectively as
a group (Sharp, 2006). Additionally, peer assessments have
been shown to be deficient in the manner in which they can
be utilized as a supplement to instructor assessment of individual student contribution to a group project (Cheng &
Warren, 1999). Peer assessments have not been shown to be
sufficiently reliable due to (a) students’ lack of practical experience and overall competence in assessing the nature of
particular tasks, (b) social and cultural style bias among students, and (c) simple leniency bias or schemes that involve
group consensus on positive scores for all group members
(Cheng & Warren; May, 2008). Furthermore, the content of
peer feedback and the manner in which it affects student
learning has received very little study (Strijbos et al., 2010).
On the other hand, rater training and the use of the diary
method can reduce certain peer assessment biases and improve the manner in which peer assessments of a student’s
individual contribution to group work can be a trustworthy
supplement to instructor assessment (Dommeyer, 2007; May,
2008). Similarly, using a wiki has also been shown to assist
both peer and instructor evaluation of a student’s individual
contribution to a group project (Trentin, 2009). Wikis are social software programs that offer students working in a group
a variety of online information sharing and collaborative writing features, which use “embedded wiki functions (versioning, tags, comments, linkers) to support the monitoring of
both the students’ activities and their level of contribution
to the collaborative work” (Trentin, p. 44). Both established
and newer methods of evaluating individual student contributions have important implication on overall assessment
methods of group work because grading protocol in higher
education requires professors to assign individual grades to
each student, often causing an inequity when an individual
student cannot be sufficiently recognized for contributing significantly more to a group project than other group members
(Sharp, 2006).
Within the context of higher education, peer assessment is
often used to address this dilemma and identify an individual
student’s contribution to the group work project. Typically,
peer assessments are based on a student’s overall perception
and impression of a fellow group member’s contribution and
efforts toward the group work project. The available literature on this topic indicates that peer assessment may take
the form of holistic or category-based assessment. In holistic
peer assessment, each student assigns a single grade to each
of his or her fellow group members in order to designate the
overall perception of that group member’s contribution to
the general group work effort. On the other hand, categorybased peer assessment involves each group member evaluating one another on a number of specific criteria. Then, these
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
46
P. D. RAFFERTY
categorical scores are used to determine each group member’s contribution to the group work effort. In either case, the
peer assessment evaluations are used to account for a percentage of each student’s grade. In some cases, students are
asked to indicate whether they would hire the fellow group
member again for another group work project, attempting to
simulate the actual work environment (Lejk & Wyvill, 2001;
McCloskey, 2004; Sharp, 2006).
Lejk and Wyvill (2001) suggested that category-based
peer assessment of group work is most useful for formative
assessment, whereas, the method of holistic peer assessment
is best used for summative assessment of group work. This
conclusion is generally supported by the literature; however,
the use of project diaries and iterative peer reviews at various
times throughout the group work project were also shown
to be useful in formative assessment. Project diaries and iterative peer reviews also helped to ameliorate undesirable
group and individual behaviors, as well as to clarify expectations, ensure student accountability, and reduce flawed
student memory of the group work experience (Baker, 2008;
Dyrud, 2001).
Despite these challenges, there is a dearth of present literature on the evaluation and grading methods used in group
work in a higher educational setting from the student’s point
of view. An exception to this deficit is Gatfield’s (1999) study,
which addressed this subject and found that there were generally high levels of student satisfaction with the peer assessment process. This study indicates that there were no
differences in the levels of satisfaction with the overall peer
assessment process when sex and age were used as independent variables. However, “there was a fairly significant difference (t [259], p = .059) in the level of satisfaction between
students with work experience and those without experience”
(Gatfield, p. 369, italics added). Students with work experience reported higher levels of satisfaction with group work
in higher educational settings. Yet, Gatfield maintains that it
is necessary to apply this study to other areas within higher
education.
Although formative and summative assessments, along
with the utility of peer-review topics, were recurrent themes
in much of the literature, a third assessment framework
emerged in the literature that involved long-term learning
within the context of group work in higher education. Longterm learning has evolved to be an essential factor within
assessment because assessors of group work are intrinsically
involved in the preparation of students in “making complex
judgments about their own work and the work of others and
for making decisions in the uncertain and unpredictable circumstances in which they will find themselves in the future”
(Boud & Falchikov, 2006, p. 402).
Referred to as learning-oriented assessment, this is a significant deviation from the central feature of formative and
summative assessment, where the instructor is the active
player in the assessment process and students are the recipients of such assessment. Instead, this assessment framework
purports that practices intended for long-term learning in the
group work process involve students becoming major agents
in the process of assessment and not simply receivers of assessment practices. Learning-oriented assessment also helps
to equip students with the competence to be an assessor of
learning long after the student leaves the university (Boud &
Falchikov, 2006).
Although the methods and framework of assessment in
higher education within the context of group work are evolving, Boud and Falchikov (2006) summarized the essence of
any group work assessment approach when they write that
“assessment in higher education is commonly held to contribute to feedback to students on their learning and the certification of their achievement” (p. 399). However, a serious
dilemma exists when this short-term focus is not “balanced
against a longer-term emphasis for learning-oriented assessment to foster future learning after graduation” (Boud &
Falchikov, p. 399).
Learning-oriented assessments tend to be studentcentered and involve more than simply gathering and evaluating the end product of group work. These alternative forms
of assessment within higher education include evaluations of
both individual and group contributions and, in the end, focus
and reflect the highly contextualized learning that takes place
in an individual’s personal and professional lives. Regardless
of the specific technique, one goal of assessment should be
to help prepare students to learn about the nature of group
work beyond the confines of the classroom and develop their
skills long after they leave the university (Boud & Falchikov,
2006; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004).
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
In 2010–2011, a descriptive, embedded, single-case strategy
was conducted to study the phenomenon of group work in
higher education (Yin, 2003). The main unit of analysis was
a part-time MBA program at a private, coeducational university on the East Coast of the United States. A typical-case,
purposive sampling strategy was used for the selection of
the study site and all research participants were chosen for
maximum variation. This technique added significantly to the
strength of the study by identifying shared themes and patterns that exist among student participants with noteworthy
variations, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, course selection,
number of years in program, use of satellite campus, dual degree enrollment, and grade point average (Golafshani, 2003;
Hoepfl, 1997).
Study participants comprised three subgroups. The first
subgroup included nine part-time students enrolled in the
MBA program at the research site and served as key informants (Yin, 2003). These key informants participated in two
in-depth interviews lasting at least one hour each. The second subgroup included six MBA instructors at the study site
who required semester-long group work of their part-time
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
THE EVALUATION OF MBA GROUP WORK
students. Each MBA instructor participated in a 1-hr interview and also provided extensive case study documents.
The third subgroup of participants included 600 part-time
MBA students. This population received a web-based survey.
A total of 160 students returned a completed survey, yielding
a response rate of approximately 27%. Survey respondents
were shown to be representative of the general population of
part-time MBA students at the study site based on gender. Of
survey respondents, 48% were women and 52% were men.
This is closed aligned with the population at the study site, of
which 45% were women and 55% were men. A chi-square
goodness-of-fit was performed to determine if the gender
of survey respondents differed significantly from that of the
population. It was determined that the observed chi square is
not significantly different from expected, χ 2(1, N) = 0.364,
p > .05. Similarly, the average age of the general population
of part-time MBA students was closely aligned with survey
respondents. The average age of the general population was
29 years and the majority of survey respondents were between the ages of 25 and 30 years. The age distribution of
survey respondents included 29.4% between the ages of 20
and 25 years; 43.8% between the ages of 26 and 30 years;
10.6% between the ages of 31 and 35 years; 6.9% between
the ages of 36 and 40 years; 5.6% between the ages of 41
and 45 years; and 3.8% were age 45 years and older.
This study utilized multiple information collection strategies in order to understand this topic from the perspective
of the learner, including open-ended and semistructured interviews, document collection, journaling by part-time MBA
students, and a web-based survey. This information collection strategy allowed for data triangulation, one of the techniques used to contribute to the credibility of this study.
Case Study Credibility and Analysis Techniques
The overall credibility of this study was established by the application of three case study tactics proposed by Yin (2003).
First, construct validity was established during the information collection and analysis phases through the use of multiple information sources, the establishment of a logical chain
of evidence, and extensive feedback from key informants and
other participants. External validity was maintained during
the research design phase so that analytical generalizations
may be tested by replicating this study at other universities
in future studies. Finally, reliability was established during
the study’s information collection phase through the use of
a clearly defined case study protocol, as well as the use of
thick, rich description (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Yin, 2003).
Furthermore, the factual accuracy of all accounts and the
precision of participants’ meaning on the topic being studied support the descriptive and interpretive trustworthiness
of this study (Johnson & Turner, 2003) and was established
by following carefully prescribed verification procedures at
every stage of the research process, including (a) triangulation, (b) member checking, (c) multiple-session interviews,
47
(d) multiple information analysis strategies, (e) the use of a
critical friend, and (f) the use of rich, thick description (Costa
& Kallick, 1993; Glesne, 1999; Swaffield, 2008).
This study used a multiple information analytic strategy
and followed Yin’s (2003) descriptive framework method,
which is useful in embedded unit analysis. First, the specific
analytic technique of chronologies was employed in order to
compile chronological events and apply these to the specific
objective of the case study. Second, meaning condensation
was also utilized as an information analysis strategy (Kvale,
1996). This technique has been shown to be an appropriate and valuable approach in separating study information
into manageable units that identify themes and assist the
researcher in deriving meaning of complex participant experiences (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Glesne, 1999; Kvale, 1996;
Payne et al., 2006).
FINDINGS
Within the context of group work, this case study revealed a
noteworthy finding regarding student perception of the peer
evaluation process used in the assessment of group work
on the graduate level. Information gathered through key informant interviews and journals demonstrated that part-time
MBA students did not view the peer evaluation as a learning
tool or device to understand their role in the group work process. This is because the information gleaned from this tool
is used solely by the professor for the purpose of grading and
is never seen by the student. Although all key informants and
faculty participants reported using some kind of peer evaluation at the conclusion of group work, this tool was used to
assist the course instructor in the grading process, not as a
reflective device.
The case study revealed that graduate business courses
used some type of peer evaluation at the end of group work,
which included a rubric that served as a scoring tool for students to evaluate their fellow group members. Some course
rubrics also included a scoring mechanism for students to
evaluate their own level of contribution to the group work
project. This assessment technique allows each student to assess their fellow group members on attendance, promptness,
and preparation for group meetings. Evaluation forms also
allow for a student’s opinion regarding cooperative efforts
of fellow group members, the meeting of deadlines, quantity
and quality of work, as well as a judgment on whether group
members did their fair share of the group work. Some peer
evaluation forms asked if a student would choose to work
with another group member in the future.
However, students do not perceive the peer evaluation as
an effective tool for learning about an individual’s role in
the group work process. Overall, key informants reported
being fully aware of the purpose of the peer evaluation form
as it is presently used in their MBA program. They understand it is used as a tool for instructors to gauge individual
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
48
P. D. RAFFERTY
contributions to the group work assignment and acknowledged that course documents are clear in this intent. Students
recognized that this device is their opportunity to make course
instructors aware of any deficiency with a group member, as
well as a tool to recognize group members who performed
well. Nevertheless, they did not view the peer evaluation as
a learning tool or device to understand their own role in
the group work process. Students reported this as a missed
opportunity in the assessment and evaluation process.
This finding is directly aligned with another major outcome of this study, in that students did not view their experiences in a vacuum. In fact, key informants reported the
importance of viewing their group work experiences more
holistically, suggesting a process that would allow them to
link each group work experience to the next and build upon
the experiences and skills learned from prior group work.
One key informant labeled this concept as a learning portfolio. Research participants suggested this would be a tangible
tool that would allow them to (a) understand how one group
work experience relates to another, (b) gain substantive feedback from fellow group members that is not currently made
available to them through the peer evaluation process, (c) expand on the feedback they receive from instructors about all
aspects of group work, and (d) reflect on what they have experienced and how it relates to their professional and personal
lives. Students did not consider this to be a summative or
individual assessment device for course instructors. Rather,
it is a development tool to be used solely by students during
the MBA program and beyond.
This is not a novel approach (Hoover, Giambatista,
Sorenson, & Bommer, 2010; Tompkins & Paquette-Frenette,
2010); student learning portfolios are used in various disciplines within higher education, such as educational administration, architecture, art, and engineering programs, as
well as medical schools (Deketelaere et al., 2007; Heinrich,
Bhattacharya, & Rayudu, 2007; Norton, 2004; Scott, 2010;
Tompkins & Paquette-Frenette). Although recent research
on management education indicates there is “relatively little systematic, empirical study of the efficacy of learning
portfolios” (Scott, p. 431); literature in other disciplines has
reported that the effectiveness and efficiency of student portfolios as a learning tool have been confirmed (Deketelaere
et al.).
Defined as a tangible, dynamic document designed to organize, chronicle, and record a student’s professional growth
and achievement during a program of study, a learning portfolio includes a collection of personal thoughts and selfassessments, as well as feedback from other relevant participants in a student’s learning experience (Hoover et al.,
2010; Norton, 2004; Scott, 2010). Although this process involves protracted student and faculty involvement, there is
opportunity for self-directed learning (Tompkins & PaquetteFrenette, 2010). Scott wrote that the time is right for management education to reexamine its positivist orientation and
consider such a constructivist approach as a student learning
portfolio. Although time consuming (Tompkins & PaquetteFrenette).
Suggestion for the use of a student learning portfolio by
key informants in this case study correlates with student
feedback concerning the absence of reflection at the end
of group work and their perception that the current peer
evaluation process lacks utility as a means of feedback for
students. For example, one student reported, “I think it’s
important for self-reflection, and also peer reflection and
professor reflection.” He went on to explain that, at the conclusion of group work, students “need three levels of reflection at this stage: (1) self-reflection by the student, (2) peer
reflection—how your group members perceived you, and
(3) instructor reflection—feedback from your professor.”
This was a common theme among all key informants. They
view this kind of tripartite assessment process at the end of
group as a way to promote feelings of a positive group work
outcome by allowing students to understand how one group
work experience relates to another.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Within the context of assessment and evaluation of part-time
MBA group work, this case study has practical implications
in the areas of pedagogy, professional and organizational
development, and graduate student experiences. The implication in the area of pedagogy can be found in the manner
in which the results of this case study demonstrate the link
between MBA course instructors and their ability to maximize student perceptions of a positive group work outcome.
For example, this study demonstrates the limitation of the
peer evaluation process in group work and the importance
of providing assessment and evaluation mechanisms for students to understand how his or her growth and achievement
is related to group work over time.
Second, there are implications in the area of professional
and organizational development within higher education.
This is evident in the manner in which the results of this
study demonstrate the importance of utilizing existing institutional resources and structures to train and develop administrators, faculty, and staff to make more informed decisions
regarding group work within the MBA classroom, as well
as better respond to the needs of students. Such professional
development issues surrounding group work include a better
understanding of the importance of linking past, present, and
future group in the assessment and evaluation process.
A third implication of this study can be found in the area
of student experiences, specifically the manner in which parttime MBA students do not view their group work experiences
in a vacuum. This study revealed that students prefer each
group work experience be linked, building on the experiences and skills learned from prior group work. This would
allow students to (a) understand how one group work experience relates to another, (b) gain substantive feedback from
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
THE EVALUATION OF MBA GROUP WORK
fellow group members that is not currently made available
to them, (c) expand on the feedback they receive from instructors about all aspects of group work, and (d) reflect on
what they have experienced and how it relates to their professional and personal lives. This could take the form of a
learning portfolio, which is compiled over the tenure of a
student’s graduate program. The learning portfolio reflects
more than just academic learning and considers the whole
student, including diverse past, present, and future learning
experiences (Hoover et al., 2010). Students did not consider
this to be a summative or individual assessment device for
course instructors. Rather, it is a tool to be used solely by students as a learning instrument during their graduate program
and beyond.
The ability of students to reflect on their experiences
as a way to increase learning is a consistent theme within
the literature on group work in general, as well as group
work among graduate business students in particular (Desplaces, Congden, & Boothie, 2007; Isabella, 2005; Johnson,
Johnson, & Smith, 2007). For example, Isabella expanded on
this concept by explaining an approach taken at the Darden
School of Business at the University of Virginia. In the same
way, Tonn and Milledge (2002) explained how the College
of Management at the University of Massachusetts addresses
this issue by embedding a course within the MBA curriculum
that addresses group work performance and reflection among
this population.
Finally, the learning portfolio concept suggested by key
informants offers a unique student insight and enhances what
we already know from recent literature. For example, Boud
and Falchikov (2006) wrote in detail on this topic. Referred to
as learning-oriented assessment, they described a significant
deviation from the central feature of formative and summative assessment, where the instructor is the active player in the
assessment process and students are the recipients of such assessment. Instead, this assessment and evaluation technique
encourages long-term learning within the context of group
work and permits students to become active agents in the
process of assessment and not simply receivers of assessment practices. Learning-oriented assessment also endows
students with the competency to be an assessor of learning
long after the student leaves the graduate classroom (Boud
& Falchikov).
REFERENCES
Ashraf, M. (2004). A critical look at the use of group projects as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 213–216.
Bacon, D. (2005). The effect of group projects on content-related learning.
Journal of Management Education, 29, 248–267.
Baker, D. (2008). Peer assessment in small groups: A comparison of methods. Journal of Management Education, 32, 183–209.
Bastick, T. (1999, April). Reliable and valid measurement of individual’s
contributions to group work. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Western Psychological Association, Irvine, California.
49
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education:
An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Person
Education.
Bolton, M. K. (1999). The role of coaching in student teams: A justin-time approach to learning. Journal of Management Education, 23,
233–2500.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term
learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 399–
413.
Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M. L., Toy, D., & Wright, L. K. (2010). Are student
groups dysfunctional? Perspectives from both sides of the classroom.
Journal of Marketing Education, 32, 39–49.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1999). Peer and teacher assessment of oral and
written tasks of a group project. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 24, 301–314.
Colliver, J. A., Feltovich, P. J., & Verhulst, S. J. (2003). Small group learning in medicine education: A second look at the Springer, Stanne, and
Donovan meta-analysis. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 15, 2–5.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend.
Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49–51.
Deketelaere, A., Kelchtermans, G., Druine, N., Vandermeersch, E., Struyf,
E., & DeLeyn, P. (2007). Making more of it! Medical student’s motives for
voluntarily keeping an extended portfolio. Medical Teacher, 29, 798–805.
Delucchi, M. (2006). The efficacy of collaborative learning groups in an
undergraduate statistics course. College Teaching, 54, 244–248.
Desplaces, D. E., Congden, S. W., & Boothie, P. (2007). The group creativity
exercise: Getting MBAs to work and think effectively in groups. Teaching
& Learning, 4, 69–85.
Dommeyer, C. J. (2007). Using the diary method to deal with social loafers
on the group project: Its effects on peer evaluations, group behavior, and
attitudes. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 175–188.
Drake, R., Goldsmith, G., & Strachan, R. (2006). A novel approach to
teaching teamwork. Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 33–46.
Dyrud, M. A. (2001). Group projects and peer review. Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 106–112.
Edwards, A. L. (2010). Applying learning organizations to the classroom.
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(4), 1–20.
Gatfield, T. (1999). Examining student satisfaction with group projects and
peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24,
365–377.
Gillies, R. M. (2000). The maintenance of cooperative and helping behaviors
in cooperative groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70,
97–111.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative
research. The Qualitative Report, 8, 597–607.
Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for
learning—Tensions and synergies. The Curriculum Journal, 16, 207–
223.
Heinrich, E., Bhattacharya, M., & Rayudu, R. (2007). Preparation for lifelong learning using e-portfolios. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32, 653–663.
Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9, 47–63.
Hoover, J. D., Giambatista, R. C., Sorenson, R. L., & Bommer, W. H. (2010).
Assessing the effectiveness of whole person learning pedagogy in skill
acquisition. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 192–203.
Hughes, R. L., & Jones, S. K. (2011). Developing and assessing college
student teamwork skills. New Directions for Institutional Research, 149,
53–64.
Isabella, L. A. (2005). Using existing teams to teach about teams: How an
MBA course in managing teams helps students and the program. Journal
of Management Education, 29, 427–452.
Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed
methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
50
P. D. RAFFERTY
mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 297–319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1988). Cooperative learning: Two heads
learn better than one. In Context, 18, 34–39.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational
Psychology Review, 19, 15–29.
Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71, 111–120.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: As introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lejk, M., & Wyvill, M. (2001). Peer assessment of contributions to a group
project: A comparison of holistic and category-based approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 61–72.
Lightner, S., Bober, M. J., & Willi, C. (2007). Team-based activities to
promote engaged learning. College Teaching, 55, 5–18.
Lo, C. C., & Prohaska, A. (2011). Creating an environment conducive to
active and collaborative learning: Redesigning Introduction to Sociology
at a large research university. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching,
21, 75–98.
May, G. L. (2008). The effect of rater training on reducing style bias in peer
evaluation. Business Communication Quarterly, 71, 297–313.
McCloskey, D. (2004). Adding realism to the formation, management, and
evaluation of project teams. Journal of Information Systems Education,
15, 9–11.
Michaelsen, L. K., & Black, R. H. (1994). Building learning teams: The key
to harnessing the power of small groups in higher education. In S. Kadel
& J. Keehner (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher
education (pp. 65–81). State College, PA: National Center for Teaching
Learning and Assessment.
Murray, M. H., & Lonne, B. (2006). An innovative use of the web to build
graduate team skills. Teaching in Higher Education, 1(11), 63–77.
Norman, C. S., Rose, A. M., & Lehmann, C. M. (2004). Cooperative learning: Resources from the business disciplines. Journal of Accounting Education, 22, 1–28.
Norton, M. S. (2004). Student learning portfolios: How they are being implemented in educational administration preparation programs. Planning
and Changing, 35, 223–245.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Payne, B. K., Monk-Turner, E., Smith, D., & Sumter, M. (2006). Improving
group work: Voices of students. Education, 126, 441–448.
Scott, S. G. (2010). Enhancing reflection skills through learning portfolios:
An empirical test. Journal of Management Education, 34, 430–457.
Sharp, S. (2006). Deriving individual student marks from a tutor’s assessment of group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31,
329–343.
Slavin, R. E. (1988). Cooperative learning and student achievement. Educational Leadership, 46, 31–33.
Snyder, L. G. (2009). Teaching teams about teamwork: Preparation, practice,
and performance review. Business Communication Quarterly, 72, 74–79.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of small group
learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.
Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dunnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks:
Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and
Instruction, 20, 291–303.
Strom, P. S., & Strom, R. D. (2002). Overcoming limitations of cooperative
learning among community college students. Community College Journal
of Research and Practice, 26, 315–331.
Summers, J. J., Beretvas, S. N., Svinicki, M. D., & Gorin, J. S. (2005). Evaluating collaborative learning and community. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 73, 165–188.
Swaffield, S. (2008). Critical friendship, dialogue and learning, in the context
of Leadership for Learning. School Leadership and Management, 28,
323–336.
Thomchick, E. (1997). The use of collaborative learning in logistics classes.
Journal of Business Logistics, 18, 191–205.
Tompkins, M., & Paquette-Frenette, D. (2010). Learning portfolio models
in health regulatory colleges of Ontario, Canada. Journal of Continuing
Education in the Health Professions, 30, 57–64.
Tonn, J. C., & Milledge, V. (2002). Team building in an MBA “gateway”
course: Lessons learned. Journal of Management Education, 26, 415–428.
Trentin, G. (2009). Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a
collaborative learning project. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
25, 43–55.
Waters-Hasler, L., & Napier, W. (2002). Building and supporting student
team collaboration in the virtual classroom. The Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 3, 345–352.
Yamane, D. (1996). Collaboration and its discontents: Steps toward overcoming to successful group projects. Teaching Sociology, 24, 378–383.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Evaluation of MBA Group Work: A Case Study
of Graduate Student Experiences and Perceptions
of Positive Group Work Outcomes
Patricia D. Rafferty
To cite this article: Patricia D. Rafferty (2013) The Evaluation of MBA Group Work: A Case Study
of Graduate Student Experiences and Perceptions of Positive Group Work Outcomes, Journal
of Education for Business, 88:1, 43-50, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.638680
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.638680
Published online: 19 Nov 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 261
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:55
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 88: 43–50, 2013
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.638680
The Evaluation of MBA Group Work: A Case Study
of Graduate Student Experiences and Perceptions
of Positive Group Work Outcomes
Patricia D. Rafferty
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
The article forms part of an exploration into how graduate business students experience group
work. A single-case, embedded study was conducted in 2010–2011, and reveals new insight and
understanding into the manner in which master’s of business administration students perceive
evaluation methods of their group work assignments and how these methods contribute to their
perception of positive group work outcomes.
Keywords: business school teaching methods, graduate student experiences, group work,
group work outcomes, MBA teams
INTRODUCTION
Group work is widely recognized within many academic
disciplines as an important pedagogical tool when instructing graduate students (Drake, Goldsmith, & Strachan, 2006;
Gatfield, 1999; Hughes & Jones, 2011; Lejk & Wyvill, 2001;
Sharp, 2006). Working in groups enables learners to leverage
the strengths of fellow classmates while experimenting and
investigating their own abilities within a safe, educational
environment (Snyder, 2009; Waters-Hasler & Napier, 2002).
Similarly, working in groups allows students to assess and
hone their teambuilding skills for future use in the workplace.
This is evident in the manner in which employers require
their associates to have teamwork skills and the competency
to utilize groups in order to efficiently and effectively achieve
organizational goals. In part, employers expect these skills
to be learned and acquired within degree granting programs
(Chapman, Meuter, Toy, & Wright, 2010.)
For educators who utilize group work, this teaching strategy is considered an effective and efficient tool across multiple fields and disciplines within higher education (Drake
et al., 2006; Murray & Lonne, 2006; Summers, Beretvas,
Svinicki, & Gorin, 2005; Waters-Hasler & Napier, 2002).
This is evident in the manner in which group work skills and
Correspondence should be addressed to Patricia D. Rafferty, Saint
Joseph’s University, Erivan K. Haub School of Business, 5600 City
Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19131, USA. E-mail: patricia.rafferty@sju.edu
overall team effectiveness are considered to be key learning
objectives within many higher educational settings (Hughes
& Jones, 2011).
In order to provide descriptive data on the phenomenon of
group work and its implications for the evaluation of group
work assignments in higher education, here I summarize the
results of a single case, embedded study that was conducted to
describe the manner in which graduate business students experience group work. The objective of this exploration was to
add to the knowledge base by documenting authentic student
experiences with group work and how master’s of business
administration (MBA) students view the assessment process
within this paradigm (Yin, 2003). In addition to understanding how graduate business students experience group work,
the outcome of this investigation provides new insight into
the manner in which part-time MBA students view present
group work assessment techniques and the manner in which
these evaluation methods promote the perception of a positive
group work outcome. Within this context, a positive group
work outcome is defined as student perception that maximizes satisfaction with the group work process, the learning
of focal course material, or the learning about the group work
process.
Terms, such as teamwork, group work, cooperative learning, and collaborative learning “are often used synonymously” (Drake et al., 2006, p. 33). Regardless of the specific
terminology, this pedagogical method is commonly understood to be the process in which small groups of interdependent individuals share responsibility for the outcome of
semester-long course tasks and projects (Strom & Strom,
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
44
P. D. RAFFERTY
2002) and many educators accept this paradigm as a collaborative approach that involves students working cooperatively
(Delucchi, 2006). Stephen Sharp (2006) indicated “the use of
group work, in which three or more students jointly produce
a piece of work for summative assessment, is an established
aspect of teaching and learning in higher education” (p. 329).
Literature on this topic demonstrates multiple benefits of using group work as a pedagogical tool in higher education,
including: “(1) students learn teamwork skills, (2) students
improve their critical thinking skills, and (3) students gain
more insight about a particular topic” (Payne, Monk-Turner,
Smith, & Sumter, 2006, p. 441).
Such benefits have been documented across multiple academic disciplines within higher education. For example,
studies of undergraduate students participating in group work
within science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
courses have generally demonstrated greater student persistence, reported more positive attitude toward learning, and
typically showed greater academic achievement when compared with students who did not work in groups within similar courses (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999). Similarly,
group work and collaborative learning activities have been
shown to improve student grades and increase student engagement in courses using this pedagogical approach (Lo &
Prohaska, 2011).
However, these conclusions are not universally supported.
For example, other studies have reported that group work
has not been conclusively shown to support greater academic achievement in a variety of disciplines within higher
education. The fundamental assumption that team projects
improve learning outcomes is under-researched and it is
widely accepted that further studies are necessary on the
efficacy of group projects within a variety of academic areas
within higher education (Bacon, 2005; Colliver, Feltovich, &
Verhulst, 2003; Delucchi, 2006; Lightner, Bober, & Willie,
2007; Thomchick, 1997).
These contrasting findings on the group work paradigm
within higher educational settings are not uncommon and
are often a result of judgments frequently based on subjective, anecdotal observations from students or faculty (Ashraf,
2004; Delucchi, 2006). Additionally, existing literature on
group work is so vast that multiple genres exist, further
exacerbating the lack of a common vocabulary regarding
this paradigm. For example, leading theorists on group work
commonly refer to cooperative learning as structured, group
learning activities and projects inside and outside the classroom, whereas collaborative learning groups tend to center
on unstructured tasks and projects and is founded on the
concept that knowledge is subjective and generated by the
interactions between group members. However, these constructs are so closely related that not all literature concurs on
the difference (Bacon, 2005). Nevertheless, collaborative and
cooperative group models tend to focus on mutually acquired
learning goals and the achievement of group tasks. For the
purpose of this study, group work includes cooperative and
collaborative group work involving summative assessment
(Bacon, 2005; Michaelsen & Black, 1994; Slavin, 1988).
Although group work for business students often share
various tenets found within the collaborative and cooperative
group project paradigm, Bacon (2005) explained that traditional business student group projects typically focus on the
completion of a specific, semester-long task and frequently
diverges from collaborative and cooperative models in some
key aspects:
In business classes, the typical student group project differs
in some important ways from the prototypical peer-learning
task. On business projects, students jointly produce a “deliverable” of some sort, such as a written report or group
presentation. Each member of the group then often receives
the same reward, typically the same grade. Thus, a group goal
exists; however often there is little if any formal individual
accountability. (pp. 252–253)
Based on this commonly accepted description of group work
in the graduate business environment, the underpinnings of
the group work paradigm in this context are still generally
accepted to be closely aligned with collaborative and cooperative learning in that students work together to accomplish
a common task for summative assessment (Gillies, 2000;
Johnson & Johnson, 1988; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993)
However, a review of the literature on group work within
higher education, particularly research regarding group work
in business schools, provides some insight when examined
within the framework of collaborative and cooperative learning. It reveals distinct differences that become evident, principally when examined through the interactions between
students and instructors. Perhaps most significantly, group
work with traditional business students differs from the commonly accepted collaborative and cooperative group environments by the lack of systematic guidance and regular
support mechanisms provided to students by those professors assigning team projects (Ashraf, 2004; Bolton, 1999;
Johnson & Johnson, 1988). As a result, students and course
instructors sometimes differ in their judgment of a positive
group work experience (Chapman et al., 2010). For example,
course instructors may oblige students to support their less
competent fellow group members. This may work well in
cross-functional groups, where the group’s combined efforts
are able to leverage each student’s strengths and expertise to
achieve the objective of the task. However, this is problematic
when cross-functional groups are not used (Edwards, 2010).
As a result, students are often relegated to episodes of
trial and error during group work; thus, many students experience only the frustrations and pitfalls of group work, instead of the many possible benefits (Bolton, 1999; Yamane,
1996). Therefore, students often report negative perceptions
of group work. For example, Payne et al. (2006) conducted
a survey of 143 college students who had recently completed a semester-long group project. This study revealed
THE EVALUATION OF MBA GROUP WORK
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
that 40% of students had reported being part of a team
where some members contributed little or nothing at all. Additionally, one third of respondents reported that they did not
look forward to future group work, group members did not
necessarily learn from one another, and they did not recommend the use of group work for future classes. However, not
all student perceptions on group work were entirely negative.
This study also found that approximately 85% of students reported that the participation in group work will be beneficial
to them in the workplace, while approximately 97% considered themselves to have contributed to the group project in a
meaningful way (Payne et al., 2006).
Literature Review
Given these circumstances, the evaluation and grading of
group work on the graduate level is often problematic
(Bolton, 1999; Payne et al., 2006; Yamane, 1996). Nevertheless, at the conclusion of group work, instructors must
provide final assessments of the finished group work assignment (Hughes & Jones, 2011; Strijbos, Narciss, &
Dunnebier, 2010; Thomchick, 1997). Within the context
of higher education, the most familiar category of group
work assessment takes the form of student evaluations for
summative or formative purposes. Typically, summative assessment involves reviewing, categorizing, and making judgments about a student’s achievement or ability at a fixed time
for recording and reporting functions. On the other hand,
formative assessment is typically considered an evaluation
and appraisal of a student’s achievement or ability at various stages to facilitate the learning process (Bastick, 1999;
Harlen, 2005; Lejk & Wyvill, 2001; Sharp, 2006). Although
these two forms of assessment techniques are not always
mutually exclusive (Harlen), the vast majority of assessment
methods for group work are summative and “group work by
its very nature favors the award of a grade to a group of students collectively rather than grades awarded to individual
students” (Sharp, p. 330).
However, the use of summative student assessment
in group work has significant implications. For example,
Thomchick (1997) explained,
One concern when using any type of group assessment is fair
assessment. When individuals combine efforts to produce a
group product, judgment is made on the final product, and it
is usually difficult for the assessor to know how much each
individual contributed to it. (p. 203)
One way to avoid this pitfall is the use of assessment
triangulation. This is a method where the faculty utilizes
an assessment structure that allows for both individual and
group grading elements. “By using multiple measures, or
triangulation, the instructor can construct a more complete
picture of the individual participant of each group member”
45
(Norman, Rose, & Lehmann, 2004, p. 10), thus encouraging
full participation by each group member.
However, an assessment approach that seeks to identify
individual student contribution is not universally supported
because it deviates from the primary objective of group
work, which is to work cooperatively and collectively as
a group (Sharp, 2006). Additionally, peer assessments have
been shown to be deficient in the manner in which they can
be utilized as a supplement to instructor assessment of individual student contribution to a group project (Cheng &
Warren, 1999). Peer assessments have not been shown to be
sufficiently reliable due to (a) students’ lack of practical experience and overall competence in assessing the nature of
particular tasks, (b) social and cultural style bias among students, and (c) simple leniency bias or schemes that involve
group consensus on positive scores for all group members
(Cheng & Warren; May, 2008). Furthermore, the content of
peer feedback and the manner in which it affects student
learning has received very little study (Strijbos et al., 2010).
On the other hand, rater training and the use of the diary
method can reduce certain peer assessment biases and improve the manner in which peer assessments of a student’s
individual contribution to group work can be a trustworthy
supplement to instructor assessment (Dommeyer, 2007; May,
2008). Similarly, using a wiki has also been shown to assist
both peer and instructor evaluation of a student’s individual
contribution to a group project (Trentin, 2009). Wikis are social software programs that offer students working in a group
a variety of online information sharing and collaborative writing features, which use “embedded wiki functions (versioning, tags, comments, linkers) to support the monitoring of
both the students’ activities and their level of contribution
to the collaborative work” (Trentin, p. 44). Both established
and newer methods of evaluating individual student contributions have important implication on overall assessment
methods of group work because grading protocol in higher
education requires professors to assign individual grades to
each student, often causing an inequity when an individual
student cannot be sufficiently recognized for contributing significantly more to a group project than other group members
(Sharp, 2006).
Within the context of higher education, peer assessment is
often used to address this dilemma and identify an individual
student’s contribution to the group work project. Typically,
peer assessments are based on a student’s overall perception
and impression of a fellow group member’s contribution and
efforts toward the group work project. The available literature on this topic indicates that peer assessment may take
the form of holistic or category-based assessment. In holistic
peer assessment, each student assigns a single grade to each
of his or her fellow group members in order to designate the
overall perception of that group member’s contribution to
the general group work effort. On the other hand, categorybased peer assessment involves each group member evaluating one another on a number of specific criteria. Then, these
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
46
P. D. RAFFERTY
categorical scores are used to determine each group member’s contribution to the group work effort. In either case, the
peer assessment evaluations are used to account for a percentage of each student’s grade. In some cases, students are
asked to indicate whether they would hire the fellow group
member again for another group work project, attempting to
simulate the actual work environment (Lejk & Wyvill, 2001;
McCloskey, 2004; Sharp, 2006).
Lejk and Wyvill (2001) suggested that category-based
peer assessment of group work is most useful for formative
assessment, whereas, the method of holistic peer assessment
is best used for summative assessment of group work. This
conclusion is generally supported by the literature; however,
the use of project diaries and iterative peer reviews at various
times throughout the group work project were also shown
to be useful in formative assessment. Project diaries and iterative peer reviews also helped to ameliorate undesirable
group and individual behaviors, as well as to clarify expectations, ensure student accountability, and reduce flawed
student memory of the group work experience (Baker, 2008;
Dyrud, 2001).
Despite these challenges, there is a dearth of present literature on the evaluation and grading methods used in group
work in a higher educational setting from the student’s point
of view. An exception to this deficit is Gatfield’s (1999) study,
which addressed this subject and found that there were generally high levels of student satisfaction with the peer assessment process. This study indicates that there were no
differences in the levels of satisfaction with the overall peer
assessment process when sex and age were used as independent variables. However, “there was a fairly significant difference (t [259], p = .059) in the level of satisfaction between
students with work experience and those without experience”
(Gatfield, p. 369, italics added). Students with work experience reported higher levels of satisfaction with group work
in higher educational settings. Yet, Gatfield maintains that it
is necessary to apply this study to other areas within higher
education.
Although formative and summative assessments, along
with the utility of peer-review topics, were recurrent themes
in much of the literature, a third assessment framework
emerged in the literature that involved long-term learning
within the context of group work in higher education. Longterm learning has evolved to be an essential factor within
assessment because assessors of group work are intrinsically
involved in the preparation of students in “making complex
judgments about their own work and the work of others and
for making decisions in the uncertain and unpredictable circumstances in which they will find themselves in the future”
(Boud & Falchikov, 2006, p. 402).
Referred to as learning-oriented assessment, this is a significant deviation from the central feature of formative and
summative assessment, where the instructor is the active
player in the assessment process and students are the recipients of such assessment. Instead, this assessment framework
purports that practices intended for long-term learning in the
group work process involve students becoming major agents
in the process of assessment and not simply receivers of assessment practices. Learning-oriented assessment also helps
to equip students with the competence to be an assessor of
learning long after the student leaves the university (Boud &
Falchikov, 2006).
Although the methods and framework of assessment in
higher education within the context of group work are evolving, Boud and Falchikov (2006) summarized the essence of
any group work assessment approach when they write that
“assessment in higher education is commonly held to contribute to feedback to students on their learning and the certification of their achievement” (p. 399). However, a serious
dilemma exists when this short-term focus is not “balanced
against a longer-term emphasis for learning-oriented assessment to foster future learning after graduation” (Boud &
Falchikov, p. 399).
Learning-oriented assessments tend to be studentcentered and involve more than simply gathering and evaluating the end product of group work. These alternative forms
of assessment within higher education include evaluations of
both individual and group contributions and, in the end, focus
and reflect the highly contextualized learning that takes place
in an individual’s personal and professional lives. Regardless
of the specific technique, one goal of assessment should be
to help prepare students to learn about the nature of group
work beyond the confines of the classroom and develop their
skills long after they leave the university (Boud & Falchikov,
2006; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2004).
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
In 2010–2011, a descriptive, embedded, single-case strategy
was conducted to study the phenomenon of group work in
higher education (Yin, 2003). The main unit of analysis was
a part-time MBA program at a private, coeducational university on the East Coast of the United States. A typical-case,
purposive sampling strategy was used for the selection of
the study site and all research participants were chosen for
maximum variation. This technique added significantly to the
strength of the study by identifying shared themes and patterns that exist among student participants with noteworthy
variations, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, course selection,
number of years in program, use of satellite campus, dual degree enrollment, and grade point average (Golafshani, 2003;
Hoepfl, 1997).
Study participants comprised three subgroups. The first
subgroup included nine part-time students enrolled in the
MBA program at the research site and served as key informants (Yin, 2003). These key informants participated in two
in-depth interviews lasting at least one hour each. The second subgroup included six MBA instructors at the study site
who required semester-long group work of their part-time
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
THE EVALUATION OF MBA GROUP WORK
students. Each MBA instructor participated in a 1-hr interview and also provided extensive case study documents.
The third subgroup of participants included 600 part-time
MBA students. This population received a web-based survey.
A total of 160 students returned a completed survey, yielding
a response rate of approximately 27%. Survey respondents
were shown to be representative of the general population of
part-time MBA students at the study site based on gender. Of
survey respondents, 48% were women and 52% were men.
This is closed aligned with the population at the study site, of
which 45% were women and 55% were men. A chi-square
goodness-of-fit was performed to determine if the gender
of survey respondents differed significantly from that of the
population. It was determined that the observed chi square is
not significantly different from expected, χ 2(1, N) = 0.364,
p > .05. Similarly, the average age of the general population
of part-time MBA students was closely aligned with survey
respondents. The average age of the general population was
29 years and the majority of survey respondents were between the ages of 25 and 30 years. The age distribution of
survey respondents included 29.4% between the ages of 20
and 25 years; 43.8% between the ages of 26 and 30 years;
10.6% between the ages of 31 and 35 years; 6.9% between
the ages of 36 and 40 years; 5.6% between the ages of 41
and 45 years; and 3.8% were age 45 years and older.
This study utilized multiple information collection strategies in order to understand this topic from the perspective
of the learner, including open-ended and semistructured interviews, document collection, journaling by part-time MBA
students, and a web-based survey. This information collection strategy allowed for data triangulation, one of the techniques used to contribute to the credibility of this study.
Case Study Credibility and Analysis Techniques
The overall credibility of this study was established by the application of three case study tactics proposed by Yin (2003).
First, construct validity was established during the information collection and analysis phases through the use of multiple information sources, the establishment of a logical chain
of evidence, and extensive feedback from key informants and
other participants. External validity was maintained during
the research design phase so that analytical generalizations
may be tested by replicating this study at other universities
in future studies. Finally, reliability was established during
the study’s information collection phase through the use of
a clearly defined case study protocol, as well as the use of
thick, rich description (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Yin, 2003).
Furthermore, the factual accuracy of all accounts and the
precision of participants’ meaning on the topic being studied support the descriptive and interpretive trustworthiness
of this study (Johnson & Turner, 2003) and was established
by following carefully prescribed verification procedures at
every stage of the research process, including (a) triangulation, (b) member checking, (c) multiple-session interviews,
47
(d) multiple information analysis strategies, (e) the use of a
critical friend, and (f) the use of rich, thick description (Costa
& Kallick, 1993; Glesne, 1999; Swaffield, 2008).
This study used a multiple information analytic strategy
and followed Yin’s (2003) descriptive framework method,
which is useful in embedded unit analysis. First, the specific
analytic technique of chronologies was employed in order to
compile chronological events and apply these to the specific
objective of the case study. Second, meaning condensation
was also utilized as an information analysis strategy (Kvale,
1996). This technique has been shown to be an appropriate and valuable approach in separating study information
into manageable units that identify themes and assist the
researcher in deriving meaning of complex participant experiences (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Glesne, 1999; Kvale, 1996;
Payne et al., 2006).
FINDINGS
Within the context of group work, this case study revealed a
noteworthy finding regarding student perception of the peer
evaluation process used in the assessment of group work
on the graduate level. Information gathered through key informant interviews and journals demonstrated that part-time
MBA students did not view the peer evaluation as a learning
tool or device to understand their role in the group work process. This is because the information gleaned from this tool
is used solely by the professor for the purpose of grading and
is never seen by the student. Although all key informants and
faculty participants reported using some kind of peer evaluation at the conclusion of group work, this tool was used to
assist the course instructor in the grading process, not as a
reflective device.
The case study revealed that graduate business courses
used some type of peer evaluation at the end of group work,
which included a rubric that served as a scoring tool for students to evaluate their fellow group members. Some course
rubrics also included a scoring mechanism for students to
evaluate their own level of contribution to the group work
project. This assessment technique allows each student to assess their fellow group members on attendance, promptness,
and preparation for group meetings. Evaluation forms also
allow for a student’s opinion regarding cooperative efforts
of fellow group members, the meeting of deadlines, quantity
and quality of work, as well as a judgment on whether group
members did their fair share of the group work. Some peer
evaluation forms asked if a student would choose to work
with another group member in the future.
However, students do not perceive the peer evaluation as
an effective tool for learning about an individual’s role in
the group work process. Overall, key informants reported
being fully aware of the purpose of the peer evaluation form
as it is presently used in their MBA program. They understand it is used as a tool for instructors to gauge individual
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
48
P. D. RAFFERTY
contributions to the group work assignment and acknowledged that course documents are clear in this intent. Students
recognized that this device is their opportunity to make course
instructors aware of any deficiency with a group member, as
well as a tool to recognize group members who performed
well. Nevertheless, they did not view the peer evaluation as
a learning tool or device to understand their own role in
the group work process. Students reported this as a missed
opportunity in the assessment and evaluation process.
This finding is directly aligned with another major outcome of this study, in that students did not view their experiences in a vacuum. In fact, key informants reported the
importance of viewing their group work experiences more
holistically, suggesting a process that would allow them to
link each group work experience to the next and build upon
the experiences and skills learned from prior group work.
One key informant labeled this concept as a learning portfolio. Research participants suggested this would be a tangible
tool that would allow them to (a) understand how one group
work experience relates to another, (b) gain substantive feedback from fellow group members that is not currently made
available to them through the peer evaluation process, (c) expand on the feedback they receive from instructors about all
aspects of group work, and (d) reflect on what they have experienced and how it relates to their professional and personal
lives. Students did not consider this to be a summative or
individual assessment device for course instructors. Rather,
it is a development tool to be used solely by students during
the MBA program and beyond.
This is not a novel approach (Hoover, Giambatista,
Sorenson, & Bommer, 2010; Tompkins & Paquette-Frenette,
2010); student learning portfolios are used in various disciplines within higher education, such as educational administration, architecture, art, and engineering programs, as
well as medical schools (Deketelaere et al., 2007; Heinrich,
Bhattacharya, & Rayudu, 2007; Norton, 2004; Scott, 2010;
Tompkins & Paquette-Frenette). Although recent research
on management education indicates there is “relatively little systematic, empirical study of the efficacy of learning
portfolios” (Scott, p. 431); literature in other disciplines has
reported that the effectiveness and efficiency of student portfolios as a learning tool have been confirmed (Deketelaere
et al.).
Defined as a tangible, dynamic document designed to organize, chronicle, and record a student’s professional growth
and achievement during a program of study, a learning portfolio includes a collection of personal thoughts and selfassessments, as well as feedback from other relevant participants in a student’s learning experience (Hoover et al.,
2010; Norton, 2004; Scott, 2010). Although this process involves protracted student and faculty involvement, there is
opportunity for self-directed learning (Tompkins & PaquetteFrenette, 2010). Scott wrote that the time is right for management education to reexamine its positivist orientation and
consider such a constructivist approach as a student learning
portfolio. Although time consuming (Tompkins & PaquetteFrenette).
Suggestion for the use of a student learning portfolio by
key informants in this case study correlates with student
feedback concerning the absence of reflection at the end
of group work and their perception that the current peer
evaluation process lacks utility as a means of feedback for
students. For example, one student reported, “I think it’s
important for self-reflection, and also peer reflection and
professor reflection.” He went on to explain that, at the conclusion of group work, students “need three levels of reflection at this stage: (1) self-reflection by the student, (2) peer
reflection—how your group members perceived you, and
(3) instructor reflection—feedback from your professor.”
This was a common theme among all key informants. They
view this kind of tripartite assessment process at the end of
group as a way to promote feelings of a positive group work
outcome by allowing students to understand how one group
work experience relates to another.
IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Within the context of assessment and evaluation of part-time
MBA group work, this case study has practical implications
in the areas of pedagogy, professional and organizational
development, and graduate student experiences. The implication in the area of pedagogy can be found in the manner
in which the results of this case study demonstrate the link
between MBA course instructors and their ability to maximize student perceptions of a positive group work outcome.
For example, this study demonstrates the limitation of the
peer evaluation process in group work and the importance
of providing assessment and evaluation mechanisms for students to understand how his or her growth and achievement
is related to group work over time.
Second, there are implications in the area of professional
and organizational development within higher education.
This is evident in the manner in which the results of this
study demonstrate the importance of utilizing existing institutional resources and structures to train and develop administrators, faculty, and staff to make more informed decisions
regarding group work within the MBA classroom, as well
as better respond to the needs of students. Such professional
development issues surrounding group work include a better
understanding of the importance of linking past, present, and
future group in the assessment and evaluation process.
A third implication of this study can be found in the area
of student experiences, specifically the manner in which parttime MBA students do not view their group work experiences
in a vacuum. This study revealed that students prefer each
group work experience be linked, building on the experiences and skills learned from prior group work. This would
allow students to (a) understand how one group work experience relates to another, (b) gain substantive feedback from
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
THE EVALUATION OF MBA GROUP WORK
fellow group members that is not currently made available
to them, (c) expand on the feedback they receive from instructors about all aspects of group work, and (d) reflect on
what they have experienced and how it relates to their professional and personal lives. This could take the form of a
learning portfolio, which is compiled over the tenure of a
student’s graduate program. The learning portfolio reflects
more than just academic learning and considers the whole
student, including diverse past, present, and future learning
experiences (Hoover et al., 2010). Students did not consider
this to be a summative or individual assessment device for
course instructors. Rather, it is a tool to be used solely by students as a learning instrument during their graduate program
and beyond.
The ability of students to reflect on their experiences
as a way to increase learning is a consistent theme within
the literature on group work in general, as well as group
work among graduate business students in particular (Desplaces, Congden, & Boothie, 2007; Isabella, 2005; Johnson,
Johnson, & Smith, 2007). For example, Isabella expanded on
this concept by explaining an approach taken at the Darden
School of Business at the University of Virginia. In the same
way, Tonn and Milledge (2002) explained how the College
of Management at the University of Massachusetts addresses
this issue by embedding a course within the MBA curriculum
that addresses group work performance and reflection among
this population.
Finally, the learning portfolio concept suggested by key
informants offers a unique student insight and enhances what
we already know from recent literature. For example, Boud
and Falchikov (2006) wrote in detail on this topic. Referred to
as learning-oriented assessment, they described a significant
deviation from the central feature of formative and summative assessment, where the instructor is the active player in the
assessment process and students are the recipients of such assessment. Instead, this assessment and evaluation technique
encourages long-term learning within the context of group
work and permits students to become active agents in the
process of assessment and not simply receivers of assessment practices. Learning-oriented assessment also endows
students with the competency to be an assessor of learning
long after the student leaves the graduate classroom (Boud
& Falchikov).
REFERENCES
Ashraf, M. (2004). A critical look at the use of group projects as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 213–216.
Bacon, D. (2005). The effect of group projects on content-related learning.
Journal of Management Education, 29, 248–267.
Baker, D. (2008). Peer assessment in small groups: A comparison of methods. Journal of Management Education, 32, 183–209.
Bastick, T. (1999, April). Reliable and valid measurement of individual’s
contributions to group work. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Western Psychological Association, Irvine, California.
49
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education:
An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Person
Education.
Bolton, M. K. (1999). The role of coaching in student teams: A justin-time approach to learning. Journal of Management Education, 23,
233–2500.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term
learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 399–
413.
Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M. L., Toy, D., & Wright, L. K. (2010). Are student
groups dysfunctional? Perspectives from both sides of the classroom.
Journal of Marketing Education, 32, 39–49.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1999). Peer and teacher assessment of oral and
written tasks of a group project. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 24, 301–314.
Colliver, J. A., Feltovich, P. J., & Verhulst, S. J. (2003). Small group learning in medicine education: A second look at the Springer, Stanne, and
Donovan meta-analysis. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 15, 2–5.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend.
Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49–51.
Deketelaere, A., Kelchtermans, G., Druine, N., Vandermeersch, E., Struyf,
E., & DeLeyn, P. (2007). Making more of it! Medical student’s motives for
voluntarily keeping an extended portfolio. Medical Teacher, 29, 798–805.
Delucchi, M. (2006). The efficacy of collaborative learning groups in an
undergraduate statistics course. College Teaching, 54, 244–248.
Desplaces, D. E., Congden, S. W., & Boothie, P. (2007). The group creativity
exercise: Getting MBAs to work and think effectively in groups. Teaching
& Learning, 4, 69–85.
Dommeyer, C. J. (2007). Using the diary method to deal with social loafers
on the group project: Its effects on peer evaluations, group behavior, and
attitudes. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 175–188.
Drake, R., Goldsmith, G., & Strachan, R. (2006). A novel approach to
teaching teamwork. Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 33–46.
Dyrud, M. A. (2001). Group projects and peer review. Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 106–112.
Edwards, A. L. (2010). Applying learning organizations to the classroom.
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(4), 1–20.
Gatfield, T. (1999). Examining student satisfaction with group projects and
peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24,
365–377.
Gillies, R. M. (2000). The maintenance of cooperative and helping behaviors
in cooperative groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70,
97–111.
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative
research. The Qualitative Report, 8, 597–607.
Harlen, W. (2005). Teachers’ summative practices and assessment for
learning—Tensions and synergies. The Curriculum Journal, 16, 207–
223.
Heinrich, E., Bhattacharya, M., & Rayudu, R. (2007). Preparation for lifelong learning using e-portfolios. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32, 653–663.
Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9, 47–63.
Hoover, J. D., Giambatista, R. C., Sorenson, R. L., & Bommer, W. H. (2010).
Assessing the effectiveness of whole person learning pedagogy in skill
acquisition. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 192–203.
Hughes, R. L., & Jones, S. K. (2011). Developing and assessing college
student teamwork skills. New Directions for Institutional Research, 149,
53–64.
Isabella, L. A. (2005). Using existing teams to teach about teams: How an
MBA course in managing teams helps students and the program. Journal
of Management Education, 29, 427–452.
Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed
methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:55 11 January 2016
50
P. D. RAFFERTY
mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 297–319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1988). Cooperative learning: Two heads
learn better than one. In Context, 18, 34–39.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary and professional settings. Educational
Psychology Review, 19, 15–29.
Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71, 111–120.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: As introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lejk, M., & Wyvill, M. (2001). Peer assessment of contributions to a group
project: A comparison of holistic and category-based approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 61–72.
Lightner, S., Bober, M. J., & Willi, C. (2007). Team-based activities to
promote engaged learning. College Teaching, 55, 5–18.
Lo, C. C., & Prohaska, A. (2011). Creating an environment conducive to
active and collaborative learning: Redesigning Introduction to Sociology
at a large research university. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching,
21, 75–98.
May, G. L. (2008). The effect of rater training on reducing style bias in peer
evaluation. Business Communication Quarterly, 71, 297–313.
McCloskey, D. (2004). Adding realism to the formation, management, and
evaluation of project teams. Journal of Information Systems Education,
15, 9–11.
Michaelsen, L. K., & Black, R. H. (1994). Building learning teams: The key
to harnessing the power of small groups in higher education. In S. Kadel
& J. Keehner (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher
education (pp. 65–81). State College, PA: National Center for Teaching
Learning and Assessment.
Murray, M. H., & Lonne, B. (2006). An innovative use of the web to build
graduate team skills. Teaching in Higher Education, 1(11), 63–77.
Norman, C. S., Rose, A. M., & Lehmann, C. M. (2004). Cooperative learning: Resources from the business disciplines. Journal of Accounting Education, 22, 1–28.
Norton, M. S. (2004). Student learning portfolios: How they are being implemented in educational administration preparation programs. Planning
and Changing, 35, 223–245.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2004). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Payne, B. K., Monk-Turner, E., Smith, D., & Sumter, M. (2006). Improving
group work: Voices of students. Education, 126, 441–448.
Scott, S. G. (2010). Enhancing reflection skills through learning portfolios:
An empirical test. Journal of Management Education, 34, 430–457.
Sharp, S. (2006). Deriving individual student marks from a tutor’s assessment of group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31,
329–343.
Slavin, R. E. (1988). Cooperative learning and student achievement. Educational Leadership, 46, 31–33.
Snyder, L. G. (2009). Teaching teams about teamwork: Preparation, practice,
and performance review. Business Communication Quarterly, 72, 74–79.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of small group
learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and
technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.
Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dunnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks:
Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and
Instruction, 20, 291–303.
Strom, P. S., & Strom, R. D. (2002). Overcoming limitations of cooperative
learning among community college students. Community College Journal
of Research and Practice, 26, 315–331.
Summers, J. J., Beretvas, S. N., Svinicki, M. D., & Gorin, J. S. (2005). Evaluating collaborative learning and community. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 73, 165–188.
Swaffield, S. (2008). Critical friendship, dialogue and learning, in the context
of Leadership for Learning. School Leadership and Management, 28,
323–336.
Thomchick, E. (1997). The use of collaborative learning in logistics classes.
Journal of Business Logistics, 18, 191–205.
Tompkins, M., & Paquette-Frenette, D. (2010). Learning portfolio models
in health regulatory colleges of Ontario, Canada. Journal of Continuing
Education in the Health Professions, 30, 57–64.
Tonn, J. C., & Milledge, V. (2002). Team building in an MBA “gateway”
course: Lessons learned. Journal of Management Education, 26, 415–428.
Trentin, G. (2009). Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a
collaborative learning project. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
25, 43–55.
Waters-Hasler, L., & Napier, W. (2002). Building and supporting student
team collaboration in the virtual classroom. The Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 3, 345–352.
Yamane, D. (1996). Collaboration and its discontents: Steps toward overcoming to successful group projects. Teaching Sociology, 24, 378–383.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.