A New Strategy for Dealing With Social Loafers on the Group Project

Abstract

Professors often give members of a group project the same grade or they use peer evaluations to provide individualized grades. Unfortunately, both these methods have shortcomings. This article describes the segment manager method (SMM), a method for assigning individualized grades on the group project that does not rely on peer evaluations. A quasi-experiment is described where marketing research students are graded in groups either with peer evaluations (the control group) or with the SMM (the treatment group). Students participating in the quasi-experiment were more likely to prefer the SMM over the approach that uses peer evaluations. Moreover, when the SMM is compared with the peer evaluations approach, the SMM appears to be more likely to generate individualized grades on the group project that reflect each student’s academic ability, to deter social loafing, to increase scores on the group project, and to increase scores on an exam that is heavily loaded with project material. Recommendations for future users of the SMM are offered.

Keywords

group grading individualized grades group project social loafing free rider slacker

Group projects are becoming more popular in business school classes (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008; Batra, Walvoord, & Krishnan, 1997; Hernandez, 2002). Their popularity no doubt stems from the fact that the major business school accreditation body, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), encourages business schools to offer students challenging projects that require active and collaborative learning (AACSB, 2011). Moreover, companies that hire business school graduates are demanding that new recruits have the ability to work well on teams (Fisher, 2007; Hindle, 1993; McCorkle et al., 1999; Tarricone & Luca, 2002; Thacker & Yost, 2002). When employers are asked to rank attributes they seek most from the persons they are recruiting, they often rank “teamwork skills” among the highest items on their lists (Alsop, 2004; Hindle, 1993; Sinclair, 1997; Vance, 2007).

Despite the popularity of group projects, they are not always warmly received by students who have had bad experiences with them (Feichtner & Davis, 1984). Among the problems that students have encountered with group projects are grading schemes that do not properly consider individual efforts or accomplishments (McCorkle et al., 1999), personality and scheduling conflicts (Becker & Dwyer, 1998), lack of leadership (Forman & Katsky, 1986), insufficient time to deal with the demands of the project (Batra et al., 1997; McLaughlin & Fennick, 1987), difficulty in integrating the various components of the project into a meaningful whole (McCorkle et al., 1999), and having to deal with group members who prefer to work alone (Dixon, Gassenheimer, & Barr, 2003). But the most common complaint that students have about group projects is having to deal with social loafers (also known as free riders or slackers) (Abernethy & Lett, 2005; Brooks & Ammons, 2003; McLaughlin & Fennick, 1987; Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003). A social loafer is a group member who does not contribute fairly to the group’s goals and who may benefit from the work of the other group members (Abernethy & Lett, 2005; Dommeyer, 2007; Williams, Beard, & Rymer, 1991). The incidence of social loafing on class projects is not well documented. In one longitudinal study covering several semesters, Tyagi (2008) found that anywhere from 15% to 20% of the groups working on projects in his marketing research class experienced a social loafing problem.

After this article describes the two major approaches to grading group projects, it will indicate why they are ineffective at dealing with social loafers. It will then describe a new strategy for dealing with social loafers and will provide empirical data that support the use of this strategy.

Problems With Grading Group Projects

The Group Grade

Zhang and Ohland (2009) state that group members are typically given the group grade and no attempt is made by the instructor to determine individual contributions. This approach to grading the group, however, creates an ideal environment for loafing since the student who does nothing on the project will not be identified and will receive the same grade as the person who contributes the most. Kagan (1995) believes that group grading should never be used since it produces project grades that are unrelated to students’ individual inputs.

Providing Individualized Grades With Self- and/or Peer Evaluations

Business instructors typically see only the final product coming out of each group, for example, a final paper and/or presentation. Not having intimate knowledge of the inner workings of each group, instructors often use self- and/or peer evaluations to derive individualized grades on the group project (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008).

Despite the widespread usage of self- and peer ratings, they are not always well received by students. Students generally do not receive training on how to evaluate each other, are uncomfortable evaluating their peers, are reluctant to provide negative evaluations, and may not be truthful in their evaluations (Tu & Lu, 2005). Bacon, Stewart, and Silver (1999), when comparing factors related to students’ best and worst team experiences, found that the use of traditional peer evaluations was more often associated with students’ worst team experiences. The researchers felt that the end-of-term peer evaluations may have encouraged group members to tolerate negative behaviors since punishments (via negative evaluations) could be rendered at the end of the term. In other words, it appears the students viewed the peer evaluations as a good means for delivering retribution but as a poor means for reducing group conflict. In another study, Strong and Anderson (1990) found that students rated peer evaluations as the least effective of six techniques for reducing social loafing.

Instructors who use self- and peer evaluations to provide individualized grades on the group project are assuming that the various ratings are producing valid and reliable results. Unfortunately, the literature investigating the reliability and validity of self- and peer evaluations does not consistently support this notion. Studies that have compared ratees on their self- and peer ratings have generally found either that the self-ratings significantly exceed the peer ratings (Haas, Haas, & Wotruba, 1998; Holzbach, 1978; Saavedra & Kwun, 1993) or that there is no significant correlation between the two sets of ratings (Ward, 2005). Lejk and Wyvill (2001) found that high-performing students tend to underrate themselves whereas low-performing students tend to overrate themselves. Because of all the distortion in self-ratings, several researchers have recommended that they not be used when deriving individualized grades for the group project (Lejk & Wyvill, 2001; Sharp, 2006).

The reliability and validity of peer ratings have not been well established. In fact, there has been relatively little research conducted on the reliability of peer ratings, and the limited research in this area has produced mixed results (Zhang, Johnston, & Kilic, 2008). Moreover, the research on the validity of peer ratings has likewise produced disappointing results. Reviews of studies that have investigated the validity of peer ratings have concluded that they have limited discriminability (Kane & Lawler, 1978; Love, 1981). This conclusion may not be all that surprising when one considers that peer ratings are vulnerable to a host of biases, namely, “friendship” (giving positive evaluations to friends) (Cederblom & Lounsbury, 1980; Hollander & Webb, 1955), “reciprocity” and “collusion” (evaluations based on relational effects that go beyond those of friendship) (Fellenz, 2006; Magin, 2001), “leniency” (bias from considering the consequences of the assessment) (Fahr, Cannella, Jr., & Bedeian, 1991), “retaliatory” (giving harsh ratings to those who have provided negative ratings of the rater) (DeNisi, Randolph, & Blencoe, 1983; Koeck & Guthrie, 1975), “similar-to-me” (the tendency to positively rate those having traits similar to the rater) (May, 2008), “uniformity” (the tendency to rate everyone the same regardless of their actual performance) (Fahr et al.,1991), and bias due to the “halo effect” (allowing general impressions to affect individual ratings) (Fahr et al., 1991). Biased ratings may also be caused by the age, race, gender, and personality of both the rater and ratee (Ghorpa & Lackritz, 2001; Johnson & Smith, 1997; Kane & Lawler, 1978; Park & Kristol, 1976). Because of all the biases associated with peer ratings, some researchers have concluded that they are a weak or useless measure of an individual’s contribution to the group project (Brandyberry & Bakke, 2006; Wilcoxson, 2006).

A second problem associated with self- and peer evaluations is that there is no consensus on how an instructor should work with the evaluations to derive individualized grades on the group project. Although numerous strategies for making grade adjustments with self- and peer evaluations have been offered (see, e.g., Lejk & Wyvill, 1996, and Zhang & Ohland, 2009), it is not clear which strategy will produce optimal results for an instructor.

Just because self- and peer ratings have limitations does not mean that they should not be used, for they can provide valuable feedback to the instructor and students if collected early and at regular intervals throughout the term (Brooks & Ammons, 2003). Moreover, the fact that students are aware that self- and peer evaluations are being collected regularly should reduce social loafing (Brooks & Ammons, 2003). But to use the self- and peer evaluations only at the end of the term solely for grading purposes is inviting distortion into the grading process. The remainder of this article will discuss a group project grading method that does not require self- or peer evaluations to generate individualized grades for the group project.

The Segment Manager Method

Although many academics have assumed that learning is enhanced through the use of group projects (Herman, Keldsen, & Miller, 2001), Bacon (2005) demonstrated that learning of material may actually be reduced when group projects are used. It appears that certain conditions must be met for group projects to be an effective learning tool. First, the grading of the group project must have both an individual and group component (Beatty, Hass, & Sciglimpaglia, 1996; Williams et al., 1991). In his analysis of the collaborative learning literature, Slavin (1988) concluded that group projects that incorporated group goals along with individual accountability were far more effective in increasing student achievement than group projects that did not have both of these features. Slavin (1988) believes that group goals promote cooperation among group members whereas individual accountability may inhibit social loafing. Second, the project grade must amount to a significant portion of the course grade (Bacon et al., 1999; Joyce, 1999; LeRosen, 1976). If, for example, the project grade amounts to only a tiny percentage of the student’s course grade, there will be little consequence to a student who loafs on the project. Finally, there must be a way for an instructor to accurately assess each individual’s contribution to the group project. Numerous laboratory experiments have demonstrated that social loafing is diminished when the evaluator can identify the contributions from each group member (Harkins & Petty, 1982; Ingham, Levinger, Graves, & Peckham, 1974; Kerr & Bruun, 1981; Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979; Petty, Harkins, Williams, & Latane, 1977; Weldon & Gargano, 1988). The above guidelines were taken into consideration when developing the segment manager method (SMM).

With the SMM, the instructor breaks the group project into segments and allocates points to each segment to reflect the amount of effort that will be needed to fulfill each segment’s requirements. After explaining the segments to the students, the instructor tells them that each group member must become the segment manager for enough segments to meet a minimum point requirement. The minimum point requirement for each member is determined by dividing the total number of segment points on the project by the number of persons in the group. Group members are instructed to take advantage of their strengths when selecting segments and to be fair in the segment selection process.

Although the SMM requires that managers be assigned to segments, it is not the intent of this method to have each manager complete each segment alone. Rather, the segment managers should be motivating their group to execute the requirements of the selected segments in the best possible fashion. All group members should be actively involved in supporting their segment managers during all stages of a segment’s completion. That is, all group members should be generating ideas on how to best execute a segment, should share in the completion of each segment, and should provide constructive feedback on all early work developed for a segment. For each group member, two grades will be calculated: a segment grade (reflecting how well that segment manager’s segments were executed) and a group project grade (reflecting how well the group did on the entire project). Each group member’s grade on the project will be the weighted average of the segment grade (80% weight) and the group project grade (20% weight).

A few minor complications can occur when implementing the SMM. First, group members may not all manage segments that have the same point totals. For example, if a project has 100 points and three group members, the minimum number of points required for each segment manager will be 33.3. However, with each segment being either a 5- or 10-point segment, it will not be possible to give each segment manager 33.3 points. Rather, two segment managers will have 35 points and a third will have 30 points. This kind of an allocation might upset the two segment managers who have segments totaling 35 points. In an effort to be as fair as possible in the grading process, the instructor can tell the two segment managers who have segments totaling 35 points that their segment grade will be based only on their top performing segments until 30 points have been accounted for. In this way, every group member will be graded on their top 30 points, regardless of the number of points they are handling.

A second complication can occur if a group has social loafers who fail to execute one or more of their segments properly. When confronted with this situation, the remaining group members have two options. They can either turn the project in “as is” and accept the resulting grade or one or more of the other group members can assume responsibility for the segments that were performed poorly by the social loafers. When a social loafer’s segment is managed by another student, the new segment manager will be assuming more than the minimum point requirement whereas the social loafer may be managing less than the minimum point requirement. Students are told that if this type of situation occurs, segment managers who assume more than the minimum point requirement will receive a segment grade that is based only on their top performing segments until the minimum point requirement is met. So if segment managers perform poorly on “extra segments,” that fact will not affect their segment grades. Social loafers, on the other hand, who have had their segments taken over by someone else, may now be below the minimum point requirement. Students are told that any segment manager who manages segments that have points totaling below the minimum point requirement will first receive a grade on the segments that they managed. That grade will then be lowered by multiplying it by the following ratio: “point potential of segments graded for that individual” divided by “minimum point requirement.” So, for example, assume that a social loafer had a 40-point minimum requirement and that the loafer abandoned a 10-point segment. Further assume that the loafer received a “B-” grade on the segments that were graded. The loafer’s final segment grade would be a “C,” that is, 2.67 × 30/40 = 2.00.

A delicate situation may arise if alleged slackers protest the fact that the group did not find their work acceptable. They may argue that their segment work should be included in the final report and that they should not be penalized for doing inferior work. The instructor can handle this situation by telling all groups to retain any material that is submitted by an alleged slacker. The “unacceptable material” should be placed in the rear of the final written report. Should alleged slackers wish to protest the fact that their submissions were not accepted by the group, the instructor can examine the original material that was submitted by them to determine how well it was done. If the instructor were to agree that the “unacceptable material” is of poor quality, the instructor would not need to make any adjustments in the alleged slackers’ grades. If the instructor felt that the alleged slackers’ submissions had been wrongly rejected by the group, the instructor could accept their original submissions and grade the report accordingly.

Another complication can occur when the weighted average formula is used to determine each group member’s individual project grade. Sometimes this formula will yield a grade point that lands in a “borderline area,” that is, a grade point that lands between two grades. Should this result occur, the instructor can use a rule to specify whether the student will receive the lower or higher of the two grades. I let the student’s homework results determine which grade the student will receive: If the student’s homework is satisfactory, I award the higher of the two grades; if the homework is unsatisfactory, I award the lower of the two grades.

An example of the SMM is displayed in Exhibit 1. The circled numbers indicate how a group of three fictitious students have divided the segments among themselves. In this example, John Smith, besides completing his assigned segments, assumed responsibility for a segment that was not completed properly by a loafing group mate, Mike Adams. Since John assumed more than the 40-point minimum requirement, his total points earned were determined by summing his scores on his top performing segments until 40 “attempted points” were accounted for (i.e., 5 + 9 + 9.5 + 5 + 9.6 = 38.1). Dividing the 38.1 by 40 yields a 95% “correct figure” for John, producing an “A” segment grade for him. From the explanations already given, it should be apparent how each group member’s final project grade was derived in Exhibit 1. (For a detailed explanation of the derivation of each member’s project grade, the reader may contact the author.)

Exhibit 1.

Segment assignments and grades

Hypotheses

Generating an Individualized Group Grade That Reflects Individual Ability

The use of peer evaluations to generate individualized grades on the group project has two problems. First, peer evaluations are fraught with so many biases that they cannot be relied on to give an accurate assessment of each member’s contribution to the project. Second, since over a dozen methods have been developed for using peer evaluations to derive individualized grades on the group project, it is questionable which method should be used for making grade adjustments. In sum, professors who adjust grades based on peer evaluations are working with weak data and a questionable adjustment process. Consequently, when professors use peer evaluations for making grade adjustments, the resulting individualized grades may not be correlated well to each student’s ability and performance. However, with the SMM, an individual’s grade on the project is directly tied to how well the individual’s segments are executed. Segment managers who do their jobs well should receive high individual project grades, and vice versa. It, therefore, would appear that a student’s individual grade on the group project would be more likely to reflect the student’s ability if it were obtained via the SMM than with peer evaluations. Based on the above reasoning, the following hypothesis is offered:

Hypothesis 1: Individualized project grades determined with the SMM will be more correlated with other measures of a student’s ability (e.g., course exam grade point average [GPA] and university GPA) than individualized project grades determined with peer evaluations.

Preventing Social Loafing

The group grading method that is more likely to cause students to believe that they will be held accountable for their actions should be more likely to prevent social loafing. Since peer evaluations are subject to numerous biases and can be misleading, students given individualized project grades with this method may feel that their project performances may escape accurate scrutiny by the instructor. However, when the SMM is used to assign individualized grades, students should feel that their contributions to the project will be obvious to the instructor, for most of the student’s grade is based on how well the managed segments are executed. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that there will be less evidence of social loafing when projects are graded with the SMM than when they are graded with peer evaluations.

Hypothesis 2: There will be less evidence of social loafing when group projects are graded with the SMM than when they are graded with peer evaluations.

Perception of Grading Fairness

Any grading method that does a good job at translating a student’s efforts into the student’s grade should be perceived by students as fair. Since it appears that the SMM does a better job than peer evaluations at holding students accountable for their actions on the group project, it is reasonable to assume that students graded with the SMM should be more likely than those graded with peer evaluations to believe that their group grading method is fair.

Hypothesis 3: Students graded with the SMM will be more likely than students graded with peer evaluations to perceive their group grading system as fair.

Increasing Achievement and Learning

Slavin (1988) concluded that group projects that include group goals along with individual accountability are most likely to result in achievement and learning among group members. Both the group grading methods used in this study—the SMM and the peer evaluations approach—have group goals. However, since the SMM requires that group members identify which segments they will manage at the beginning of the project, it does a better job than peer evaluations at establishing individual accountability. For that reason, it is assumed that more achievement and learning will occur with the SMM than with the peer evaluations approach.

In the present study, learning and achievement are measured at two levels. At the group level, achievement is measured by examining how well each group performs on the group project. At the individual level, learning is measured by how well each student scores on the final exam. Roughly 54% of the final exam covered material that was directly related to the group research project.

Based on the above reasoning, the following hypotheses will be examined:

Hypothesis 4: Groups graded with the SMM will earn higher scores on the group project than groups graded with peer evaluations.

Hypothesis 5: Students who have their group projects graded with the SMM will earn higher scores on the final exam than students who have their group projects graded with peer evaluations.

Method

The Group Project

All students in this study were required to self-select a group of anywhere from two to four students to conduct a challenging marketing research project worth one third of their course grade. The project was worth 120 points and had two major elements: a survey involving a quasi experiment and a true experiment in which students randomly exposed their subjects to one or more treatments while their data were gathered. All the segments of the project (see Exhibit 1) were described to the students prior to beginning their research. All the final reports were graded with identical standards by the same instructor.

Throughout the term, all students were asked to provide biweekly peer evaluations. The students were told that the biweekly evaluations would have no effect on their project grade and that they were being collected only so that the instructor could be proactive in alerting group members to problems that may be brewing. Throughout the term, all students were encouraged to support the other members of their group in completing the project’s segments.

The Sample

The vast majority of the students in this study were marketing majors at a large public California state university. They became subjects in this study while taking a marketing research class that was taught between the spring semester of 2007 and the spring semester of 2009. All these classes were taught in a similar manner by the same instructor.

Quasi-Experimental Design

Two groups of students were compared in this study: those who received individualized project grades on the group project with peer evaluations and those who received individualized project grades with the SMM.

During the spring semester of 2007, three sections of marketing research were taught by the present author to a total of 65 students. The groups doing the research project from these classes were first given a group grade based on how well all the segments in Exhibit 1 were executed. Once the group grade was determined, end-of-semester peer evaluations were then used to provide individualized grades on the group project. Students who received strong peer evaluations were given an individual project grade that exceeded the group grade, and vice versa. Students who received individualized group grades via peer evaluations were considered to be in the control group.

The treatment group consisted of students who took the present instructor’s marketing research class during the summer and fall sessions of 2008 and the spring semester of 2009 (n = 132). Students in the treatment group received individualized grades on the group project via the SMM. Since the SMM was new to students in the treatment group, they received instruction on how the segments would be graded and on how the individual project grade would be the weighted average of the group member’s segment grade (80% weight) and the group project grade (20% weight) (see examples in Exhibit 1). Students in the treatment group were told that the size of the group they were in would dictate the number of segment points they would be required to manage. That is, if a student was in a group of two, three, or four members, the student would be required to manage segments having points totaling 60, 40, and 30, respectively. Two weeks into the semester, all groups in the treatment group were required to submit a “Segment Assignments & Grades” sheet (see Exhibit 1) that specified the segments that each group member would be managing. Segment managers were told that they were responsible for seeing that their segments were executed in the best possible fashion. Group members were encouraged throughout the term to support the goals of their segment managers.¹

Survey Procedures and Measuring Instrument

Just prior to taking the final examination, students were allowed about 10 minutes to examine their graded projects. A tailor-made questionnaire was then administered to each student. The top sheet of the questionnaire had the student’s name on it, the grade that was assigned to the student’s group, and the student’s individual grade on the group project. Top sheets given to those in the control group explained that any difference between an individual grade and group grade was due to the student’s low or high peer evaluations. Top sheets given to those in the treatment group explained that any difference between the two grades was due primarily to the student’s segment performance.

Both the treatment and control groups were given explanations on the questionnaire of how an individual grade on the group project would be determined if an instructor used either peer evaluations or the SMM. They then were asked which of the two methods, if any, that they preferred for determining their individual grade on the group project. They were also asked if they had any problems with the manner in which their individual grade was determined on their group project and, if so, to explain the problems. In addition, they were asked for suggestions on how the procedures for determining their individual grade could be improved. Both groups were also asked to give their preference for features of the SMM, namely, the procedure they preferred for dividing the project segments among group members and the amount of weight that should be assigned to an individual’s segment grade. Both groups were also asked to use a 5-point Likert-type scale to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement with 20 belief statements covering a variety of issues including their evaluation of group members and their opinion of the fairness of the method used to determine their individual grade on the group project. The survey administered to the treatment group also asked the respondents to indicate their likes and dislikes of the SMM.

Measure of Project Performance

All the research projects from the control and treatment groups were graded by the same instructor using identical standards. First, each project segment was evaluated and a point value was awarded to it on the basis of how well the segment was executed. Segment points were then summed to get a total score for the project. The total score was then converted to a group grade.

Measure of Student Learning

All students in this study took a final exam. With minor exception, the final exams used in each class had identical content. Approximately 54% of each final exam covered material that was directly related to the group project. The number of points earned on the final exam represents a measure of student learning.

Measures of Each Student’s Ability

For all students in the quasi-experiment, the following information was recorded: (a) individual grade on the group project, (b) university GPA obtained from university records, and (c) course exam GPA, that is, a GPA that is the average of the grades the student earned on the midterm and final examinations in the marketing research course.

Demographic Measures

University records were used to obtain the major, gender, and class standing for all students in this study.

Preliminary Data Analysis

Assessing Selection Bias

The typical subject in this study had a university GPA of about 2.7, was a marketing major, and was either a junior or senior. Roughly 51% of each class was composed of males.

The control and treatment groups were compared on four demographic variables, namely, university GPA, major, gender, and class standing. Test statistics indicate that the control and treatment groups are equivalent on all four variables.

Deriving Attitude Scales and Scale Scores

When responding to the survey instrument, students completed 20 belief statements covering a variety of project concerns. A data set was then developed that contained both the control and treatment groups’ responses to the 20 belief statements. When factor analysis with varimax rotation was applied to this data set, five factors emerged. However, since only the first two factors had strong reliability coefficients, only the first two factors were retained for further analysis in this study.

As displayed in Table 1, two attitude scales were developed based on the items that had high factor loadings on each factor. Before a scale score was determined, items having a negative loading were reverse-coded. Then a scale score was derived by adding the scores for each item comprising the scale and dividing by the number of items in the scale. Since 5-point Likert-type scales were used to collect the original data, a score on any particular scale could range from 1 to 5. A low scale score suggests little of the attribute being measured whereas a high scale score means just the opposite. The names of the two scales and the constructs they are measuring are as follows: “Slacker Problem” measures the degree to which the respondent experienced a problem with slackers in the group and “Fair Grading” measures the degree to which the respondent felt the method for determining the individual grade on the group project was fair.

Table 1.

Factor Loadings on Project Rating Items After Varimax Rotation (n = 197)^a

Item	Factor 1 “Slacker Problem”	Factor 2 “Fair Grading”
1. One or more of my partners was a slacker.	.88
2. One or more of my partners did not contribute fairly to the group project.	.88
3. I was pleased with the work from all my group partners.	−.86^b
4. All my project partners worked effectively on the group project.	−.84^b
5. If I had to do this project again, I would not want to keep all my current partners.	.68
6. I like the way my individual grade on the research project was determined.		.87
7. I believe my individual grade on the project accurately reflects my work on the project.		.82
8. The method used to determine my grade on the project was unfair.		−.78^b
9. I deserve a higher grade on the project than I received.		−.75^b
10. I understand how my individual grade on the project was determined.		.59
Eigenvalue after varimax rotation	3.81	3.12
Percentage of variance explained	19.03	15.58
Cronbach’s α	.89	.84

Only the largest factor loading on each row is displayed.

Item was reverse-coded when calculating Cronbach’s alpha and the total score on scale derived from this factor.

Results

Analysis of Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 predicts that individual project grades determined with the SMM will be more correlated with other measures of a student’s ability than individual project grades determined with peer evaluations. To investigate this hypothesis, the treatment and control groups were compared on two correlations: The first correlation compares students’ individual grades on the group project with their course exam GPAs,² whereas the second correlation compares the students’ individual grades on the group project with their university GPAs. In the first correlation analysis, the correlation between individual project grades and course exam GPAs is significantly higher with the SMM than with the peer evaluations approach (r = .45 vs. r = .27, p < .10 via a one-tailed Z test³). In the second correlation analysis, the correlation between individual project grades and university GPAs is significantly higher with the SMM than with the peer evaluations approach (r = .44 vs. r = .19, p < .05 via a one-tailed Z test³). Both these results support Hypothesis 1, indicating that the SMM is better than peer evaluations at providing individual grades on the group project that mirror a student’s academic ability.

Hypothesis 2 predicts that there will be less evidence of social loafing when group projects are graded with the SMM than when they are graded with peer evaluations. This hypothesis was assessed by comparing the control and treatment groups on their average scores on the Slacker Problem Scale, a five-item scale that is displayed in Table 1. Support was found for Hypothesis 2, as groups graded with the SMM exhibit lower mean scores on the Slacker Problem Scale than groups graded with peer evaluations: 2.5 versus 2.9, t(195) = −2.09, p < .02 (one-tailed), d = −.32.

Hypothesis 3 predicts that students graded with the SMM will be more likely than students graded with peer evaluations to perceive their group grading system as fair. No support was found for this hypothesis, as both the control and treatment groups exhibit similar mean scores on the five-item Fair Grading Scale that is displayed in Table 1: 3.1 versus 3.2, t(195) = −0.58, p > .10 (one-tailed).

Hypothesis 4 predicts that groups graded with the SMM will earn higher scores on the group project than groups graded with peer evaluations. This hypothesis was supported, for the 44 groups graded with the SMM reveal higher average scores on the group project than the 21 groups graded with peer evaluations: 98.6 versus 94.5, t(63) = 1.68, p < .05 (one-tailed), d = .45.

Hypothesis 5 predicts that students who have their group projects graded with the SMM will earn higher scores on the final exam than students who have their group projects graded with peer evaluations. This hypothesis was supported, as students in the treatment group reveal higher average scores on the final exam than students in the control group: 36.9 versus 31.0, t(195) = 3.67, p < .001 (one-tailed), d = .55.

Additional Findings

Students’ preferences for a grading method

The questionnaires administered to the treatment and control groups described how individualized grades on the group project could be determined with the SMM and with peer evaluations. After students read the two descriptions, they were asked which one of the two grading methods would be preferred, if any, if they were to do the marketing research project again with a group. Since the preferences from both the treatment and control groups were nearly identical, their results were combined into one data set. Of the 168 students who expressed a preference for a group grading method, 58% of them opted for the SMM and 42% selected the peer evaluations approach. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicates that the students’ greater preference for the SMM is statistically significant, χ²(1) = 4.02, p < .05.

Positive features of the SMM

When those in the treatment group were asked to indicate the features, if any, they liked about the SMM, 55% of them provided a comment. As displayed in Table 2, the most popular comments were that they liked being rewarded for their individual efforts and that they felt the determination of their individual project grade was fair and accurate. Other comments indicated that the SMM prevents free riding, clearly specified individual responsibilities, and gave each member an opportunity to manage segments. A few students stated that the SMM clearly describes grading procedures, has both an individual and a group component in the grading process, and allows a group member to focus primarily on certain segments of the project.

Table 2.

Features That Are Liked About the Segment Manager Method^a,b (n =73)

I was rewarded for my individual contribution to the group project.	26%
The determination of my individual project grade was fair and accurate.	25%
It prevents free riding.	15%
It clearly specifies who is primarily responsible for each of the project’s segments.	15%
It gave each group member an opportunity to manage segments of the project.	10%
It clearly specifies how a person’s individual grade on the project will be determined.	4%
A group member’s individual project grade reflected both an individual and team effort.	3%
It allows each group member to focus only on certain segments of the project.	3%

Based on the following open-ended question: “What, if anything, did you like about the ‘segment manager method’ for determining your project grade?”

Percentages may not sum to 100% because of rounding error.

Negative features of the peer evaluations approach and the SMM

Students in the control and treatment groups were asked to comment on any problems that they may have had with the manner in which their individual project grade was calculated. Twenty percent of those in the control group and 30% of those in the treatment group provided comments. The results are displayed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Complaints About Individual Project Grade Determination^a

Complaint	Control Group (Peer Evaluations; n = 13)	Treatment Group (Segment Manager Method; n = 40)^b
My grade does not reflect all the hard work I put into the project.	85%	28%
All teammates should get the same grade.	15%	25%
The person who got credit for a segment’s results did not do all the work on the segment. Got lots of help from his or her teammates.	0%	20%
I did not like the segments I had to manage.	0%	13%
Too much weight was placed on my segment performance.	0%	8%
I did not understand what the segment involved before selecting it.	0%	5%
Miscellaneous	0%	2%

Based on the following open-ended question: “Do you have any problems with the manner in which your individual grade on the research project was determined? If ‘yes,’ please explain:”

Percentages may not sum to 100% because of rounding error.

The main comment from those responding from the control group was that they did not believe that their individual project grade accurately reflected all the hard work that they put into the project. Although about a quarter of those responding from the treatment group also made this comment, they also stated that they should be allowed to get the same grade as everyone else in the group, that the person getting credit for a segment may have had little to do with the segment work, that they did not always like the segments they had to manage, that there was too much grade weight on their segment performance, and that they did not have a clear understanding of what each segment involved before choosing the segments they would manage.

Those in the treatment group were also asked what they disliked about the SMM for determining their individual project grade. Although this question is very similar to the previous one asking if they had complaints about the grading process, it did generate some different comments. Thirty-nine percent of the treatment group provided comments to this question, and the results are displayed in Table 4. Forty-eight percent of the respondents disliked the fact that the segment manager got all the credit for a segment’s work even though much of the work may have been done by the group. Less mentioned comments were that the respondent was burdened with difficult segments, the segments were not weighted properly, a social loafer can cause poor segment performance, the grading process was unclear, team work is discouraged, and being a segment manager was distasteful.

Table 4.

Features That Were Disliked About the Segment Manager Method^a,b (n = 52)

Although the group did the segment work, the segment manager got all the credit or discredit for it.	48%
I was burdened with difficult segments, while my group members got easier ones.	15%
Some of the segments should have been given more or less weight.	10%
If you have a lousy segment manager in your group, the work either does not get done or is performed poorly.	8%
The grading process was not clear to me.	8%
It discourages team work. I got little or no help on my segments from others.	8%
I did not like being a segment manager.	4%

Based on the following open-ended question: “What, if anything, did you dislike about the ‘segment manager method’ for determining your project grade?”

Percentages may not sum to 100% because of rounding error.

Suggestions for improvement

Students in the control and treatment groups were asked how the procedures for determining their individual grade on the group project could be improved. Only 12% of the control group and 25% of the treatment group offered suggestions for improvement, and the results are displayed in Table 5.

Table 5.

Suggestions for Improving the Group Grading Procedure^a

Suggestion	Control Group (Peer Evaluations; n = 8)	Treatment Group (Segment Manager Method; n = 33)^b
Have a better method for detecting individual involvement: Peer evaluations are misleading.	88%
A procedure is needed for getting constructive feedback from group members.	12%
Allow groups the option of choosing the group grade for all group members.		37%
Peer evaluations should also be considered when determining the individual grade.		29%
A better procedure is needed for assigning segments to managers.		29%
Clarify how the individual grade on the project is determined.		4%

Based on the following open-ended statement: “Please explain how the procedures used for determining your individual grade on the group project could be improved.”

Percentages may not sum to 100% because of rounding error.

Eighty-eight percent of the comments from the control group indicated that there should be a better method for detecting individual project involvement, for the peer evaluations can be misleading. The remaining 12% of the comments stated that there should be a procedure that allows students to receive constructive feedback from the peer evaluations.

The most popular comment from the treatment group was that groups should be allowed to have everyone in the group receive the same grade, that is, the group grade. Other popular comments from the treatment group were that peer evaluations should be considered in the grading of individuals and that a better procedure was needed for assigning segments to managers. Only 4% of the comments indicated that the procedures for determining the individual grade on the project needed to be clarified.

Student preferences for SMM features

Students in the control and treatment groups were asked the following two questions concerning SMM features: (a) When the SMM is used, how should the various segments of a project be divided among the group members? (b) With the SMM, how much weight should the professor place on the individual’s segment performance when determining the individual grade on the group project? There were no significant differences between the control and treatment groups’ responses to these questions. Consequently, the responses to these questions will be reported for both groups combined.

Of those responding to the “segment assignment” question (n = 192), 69% favored allowing group members to decide among themselves how the segments should be assigned, 20% thought the segments should be assigned randomly to the group members by the instructor, and 11% felt that the professor should make the segment assignments.

The “segment weight” question produced a fairly normal distribution of responses from the 195 respondents. They felt the amount of weight that should be placed on the segment manager’s performance when determining the individual project grade should range anywhere from 0% to 100%. The mean, median, and modal responses to this question were 51.5%, 50%, and 50%, respectively.

Discussion

The main virtue of the SMM is that it gives students control over their fates while working on a group project. Rather than having to be victimized by poor performing group mates, students graded with the SMM know that their individual grades on the group project are largely controlled by how well their segments are managed and executed. A secondary virtue of the SMM is that it gives every group member an equal opportunity to get involved in the project. When the SMM is not used, a student who may be shy or dominated by other group members might not have a chance to contribute much to the project.

A powerful motivating feature of the SMM is that it is much like a contract. Most group contracts deal with behavioral issues such as tardiness, work deadlines, and attendance policies at meetings. However, when students complete the “Segment Assignments & Grades” sheet (see Exhibit 1) at the beginning of the term, they are, in essence, making a contract that focuses directly on the work that must be accomplished to complete the project. The consequences for meeting or not meeting the segment requirements are clearly specified in the course syllabus and by the instructor.

Some may argue that the SMM discourages teamwork since individuals may be focused primarily on the segments that they must manage. Although students are primarily focused on the segments they manage, they are instructed to be supportive of the other segment managers in their group. This means all group members should be actively involved in all the segments, whether it be giving ideas on how to execute a segment, helping in the creation of segment material, or providing feedback on material produced for a segment. In some cases, group members will not function as they should. They will simply work on their segments and not contribute to the others’ goals. The reader should note, however, that this lack of involvement can occur with any group grading system. Groups that are graded with the group grade or peer evaluations are also likely to divide up the tasks among the group members, causing group members to focus primarily on their assigned tasks. There was little evidence in the present study that the SMM discourages team work or limits learning. In fact, just the opposite was revealed by this study. The examinations of Hypotheses 4 and 5 revealed that the SMM produced higher mean project scores and higher average scores on the final exam, an exam that had a heavy emphasis on project material.

Of those respondents who expressed a preference for one of the two group grading methods, the SMM was preferred over the peer evaluations approach by a ratio of about 1.5 to 1. Several factors were uncovered in this study that may reveal why students prefer the SMM. First, it appears to be a method that effectively deals with social loafers. The SMM not only protects the team player from the detrimental effects that can be caused by a social loafer but it also has a mechanism for clearly identifying and punishing those who perform poorly on the segments they manage. Second, the SMM does a better job than peer evaluations at generating an individualized group grade that closely matches each student’s academic ability. Finally, the SMM does a better job than the peer evaluations approach at delineating each group member’s responsibilities on the project.

Despite the many advantages of the SMM, it is curious that those in the treatment group did not score higher on the Fair Grading Scale than those in the control group. Perhaps students are unaware not only of the biases associated with self- and peer evaluations but also of the questionable manner in which peer evaluations might be used to make grade adjustments. Had those in the control group been educated on the limitations of peer evaluations, they might have scored lower than the treatment group on the Fair Grading Scale.

The minority of students who do not prefer the SMM undoubtedly have their good reasons. Those with a tendency toward social loafing will certainly want to avoid the SMM, for it will highlight their flaws. But there is another group of students who likewise may not be enamored with the SMM. These are students who are members of a cohesive group. They may see no reason why individualized grades on the group project should be parceled out and might prefer that everyone in the group receive the same grade on the project.

In this study’s version of the SMM, an 80% weight was applied to segment performance and a 20% weight was applied to project performance when determining an individual’s grade on the group project. The 80% weight on segment performance was designed to deter social loafing, whereas the 20% weight on project performance was intended to promote teamwork. When students were asked to provide grading weights, their most common answer was “50-50.” I am not in favor of a “50-50” weighting since the 50% project performance weight leaves individuals too vulnerable to the problems that can be caused by a social loafer. I believe the ideal grading system is to use the SMM with the “80-20” weights, but to allow groups to opt for the group grade should everyone in the group agree to the change. In this way, if all group members are content with each other’s efforts, they can get the same grade. If, however, the group is experiencing personnel problems, the SMM will provide the most accurate form of individualized grading.

The SMM can be easily modified to accommodate special circumstances. For example, an instructor who wants each group to work collectively on an oral report can make this a group requirement that has no bearing on anyone’s segment grade. The points earned on the oral report can simply be added to the points already earned by the group and will affect only the group grade. Another modification could come in the form of extra credit or bonus points given to groups that work on projects that are more difficult, complicated, or creative than usual. Again, these bonus points would affect only the group grade and not any member’s segment grade.

Grading with the SMM is not a burden to the instructor, especially if a spreadsheet formula is created with the appropriate weights. An instructor grading a group of four students can easily generate four individualized grades on the group project in a few minutes.

Recommendations

For those using the SMM, the following recommendations are offered:

Make sure that each segment has the correct point value. An instructor who is unsure of a segment’s point value could poll a class of students who have recently completed the project. Each student could be asked to consider the various segments and to place point values on them. If the student poll does not provide consistent valuations for the segments, the professor could use the Delphi method (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004) to develop a consensus on the valuations.

Describe the segments clearly to the students. One complaint that students had about the SMM was that they did not know exactly what each segment entailed before agreeing to manage it. In addition to describing each segment well, the instructor should provide examples of the output that is expected from each segment. The instructor should have examples of good papers available to students so that they can see how other groups have successfully completed the various segments.

Clearly describe how a student’s individual grade on the group project will be derived. The instructor should provide several examples of how various types of students (e.g., good students and free riders) will have their grades determined via the SMM.

Tell students to be wise when dividing up the segments. Since the segments selected by students will have a major impact on their individual project grades, students should select segments for which they are well suited. For example, students who are strong quantitatively might focus on the data analysis and students who write well might develop the measuring instrument. Students should also be informed that there are relationships among the segments and that it may be wise to select an assortment of segments that are closely aligned. For example, in the marketing research project, the student who is managing the questionnaire development segment should have a good understanding of issues involved in the survey. I, therefore, suggest that the same student manage both the questionnaire development segment and the segment that pertains to the survey’s literature review.

If possible, make sure that each of the group members does an “early segment.” Many group projects require the completion of some segments early in the term. If a project has “early segments,” the instructor should make sure that each group member manages one of these segments. This will allow group members to see how each member performs as a segment manager well before the project is completed. This procedure also prevents any one group member from hoarding all the early segments and then tuning out from the rest of the project.

Throughout the term, emphasize that group members should support their segment managers. Some students have a tendency to be lazy or to isolate themselves in the group. These types of students must be reminded that they are a member of a group, and that the group will perform better if each member supports the rest of the group.

Suggestions for Future Researchers

This article illustrates how the SMM can be applied to a marketing research project. However, the SMM has few boundaries: It can be applied to any project that can be segmented. Future researchers could examine how it works on other types of projects, for example, the marketing plan or case analysis.

Instructors may also wish to experiment with the weights assigned to segment and project performance. Increasing the segment manager’s weight may deter social loafing, and increasing the project performance weight may encourage teamwork. More research is necessary to determine the optimal allocation of these weights. It may also be fruitful to investigate how groups respond to weights tailored to each group. That is, investigators could determine whether allowing groups to select their own set of weights will increase the groups’ perception of grading fairness.

Another area that deserves investigation is the process used to allocate segments to group members. Segments can be allocated in a random fashion, by the instructor, or by the group members. Although the present article revealed that students prefer to be the ones selecting their segments, one must question whether that process results in the greatest learning for students. Future researchers might investigate whether forcing students to work on segments that do not match their talents will increase the amount of material they learn.

This study used the final exam score as a measure of each student’s individual learning. Unfortunately, the final exam had some questions that were not related to project material. Future researchers who want to determine the extent to which the group project is increasing a student’s learning of project material should design exams that focus solely on project material or should determine a way to develop an exam score that focuses only on the project questions.

Since this study used a quasi-experiment, one might question whether selection bias has compromised its internal validity. Although the analysis of selection bias did not reveal any significant demographic differences between the treatment and control groups, it is possible these groups differ in critical ways that were not measured. The study is also vulnerable to experimenter bias since the project was designed, implemented, and analyzed by the same person. Future researchers who investigate the SMM will hopefully overcome the limitations of this study.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks his wonderful wife, Susan, for her assistance in data coding, data entry, and proofreading. He also thanks the current editor, the past editor, and anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Marketing Education for their helpful suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Abernethy

A. M.

Lett

W. L.

III . (2005). You are fired! A method to control and sanction free riding in group assignments. Marketing Education Review, 15(1), 47-54.

Aggarwal

O’Brien

C. L.

(2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 255-264.

Alsop

(2004, September 22). How to get hired. The Wall Street Journal, p. R8.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2011). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards-2011-revised-jan2011-final.pdf

Bacon

D. R.

(2005). The effect of group projects on content-related learning. Journal of Management Education, 29, 248-267.

Bacon

D. R.

Stewart

K. A.

Silver

W. S.

(1999). Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of Management Education, 23, 467-488.

Batra

M. M.

Walvoord

B. E.

Krishnan

K. S.

(1997). Effective pedagogy for student-team projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 19(2), 26-42.

Beatty

J. R.

Haas

R. W.

Sciglimpaglia

(1996). Using peer evaluations to assess individual performances in group class projects. Journal of Marketing Education, 18(2), 17-27.

Becker

Dwyer

(1998). The impact of student verbal/visual learning style preference on implementing groupware in the classroom. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(2), 61-69.

10.

Brandyberry

A. A.

Bakke

S. A.

(2006). Mitigating negative behaviors in student project teams: An information technology solution. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17, 195-209.

11.

Brooks

C. M.

Ammons

J. L.

(2003). Free riding in group projects and the effects of timing, frequency, and specificity of criteria in peer assessments. Journal of Education for Business, 78, 268-272.

12.

Cederblom

Lounsbury

J. W.

(1980). An investigation of user acceptance of peer evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 33, 567-579.

13.

DeNisi

A. S.

Randolph

W. A.

Blencoe

A. G.

(1983). Potential problems with peer ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 457-464.

14.

Dixon

A. L.

Gassenheimer

J. B.

Barr

T. F.

(2003). Identifying the lone wolf: A team perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23, 205-219.

15.

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.

16.

Farh

J.-L. L.

Cannella

A. A.

Jr. Bedeian

A. G.

(1991). The impact of purpose on rating quality and user acceptance. Group & Organization Studies, 16, 367-386.

17.

Feichtner

S. B.

Davis

E. A.

(1984). Why some groups fail: A survey of students’ experiences with learning groups. Journal of Management Education, 9(4), 58-73.

18.

Fellenz

M. R.

(2006). Toward fairness in assessing student groupwork: A protocol for peer evaluation of individual contributions. Journal of Management Education, 30, 570-591.

19.

Fisher

(2007, April 30). The trouble with MBAs. Fortune, 155(8), 49-50.

20.

Forman

Katsky

(1986). The group report: A problem in small group or writing processes? Journal of Business Communication, 23, 23-35.

21.

Ghorpa

Lackritz

J. R.

(2001). Peer evaluation in the classroom: A check for sex and race/ethnicity effects. Journal of Education for Business, 5, 274-281.

22.

Haas

A. L.

Haas

R. W.

Wotruba

T. R.

(1998). The use of self-ratings and peer ratings to evaluate performances of student group members. Journal of Marketing Education, 20, 200-209.

23.

Harkins

S. G.

Petty

R. E.

(1982). The effect of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1214-1229.

24.

Herman

E. D.

Keldsen

S. Z.

Miller

J. G.

(2001). States of development in collaborative learning: Administrative perspectives on teaming in MBA programs. Boston, MA: Boston University School of Management Center for Team Learning.

25.

Hernandez

S. A.

(2002). Team learning in a marketing principles course: Cooperative structures that facilitate active learning and higher level thinking. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 73-85.

26.

Hindle

B. P.

(1993). The “Project”: Putting student-controlled, small-group work and transferrable skills at the core of a geography course. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 17, 11-20.

27.

Hollander

E. P.

Webb

W. B.

(1955). Leadership, followership, and friendship: An analysis of peer nominations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 163-167.

28.

Holzbach

R. L.

(1978). Rater bias in performance ratings: Supervisor, self, and peer ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 579-588.

29.

Ingham

A. G.

Levinger

Graves

Peckham

(1974). The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 371-384.

30.

Johnson

C. B.

Smith

F. I.

(1997). Assessment of a complex peer evaluation instrument for team learning and group processes. Accounting Education: A Journal of Theory, Practice, and Research, 2(1), 21-41.

31.

Joyce

W. B.

(1999). On the free-rider problem in cooperative learning. Journal of Education for Business, 74, 271-274.

32.

Kagan

(1995). Group grades miss the mark. Educational Leadership, 52(8), 68-71.

33.

Kane

J. S.

Lawler

E. E.

(1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 555-586.

34.

Kerr

N. L.

Bruun

S. E.

(1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 224-231.

35.

Koeck

Guthrie

G. M.

(1975). Reciprocity in impression formation. Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 31-41.

36.

Latane

Williams

K. D.

Harkins

S. G.

(1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.

37.

Lejk

Wyvill

(1996). A survey of methods of deriving individual grades from group assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 267-280.

38.

Lejk

Wyvill

(2001). The effect of the inclusion of self-assessment with peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A quantitative study of secret and agreed assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 551-561.

39.

LeRosen

R. G.

(1976). Group projects, peer rating scales: Management education tools. Journal of Business Education, 51, 317-318.

40.

Love

K. G.

(1981). Comparison of peer assessment methods: Reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user reaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 451-457.

41.

Magin

(2001). Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 53-63.

42.

May

G. L.

(2008). The effect of rater training on reducing social style bias in peer evaluation. Business Communication Quarterly, 71, 297-313.

43.

McCorkle

D. E.

Reardon

Alexander

J. F.

Kling

N. D.

Harris

R. C.

Iyer

R. V.

(1999). Undergraduate marketing students, group projects, and teamwork: The good, the bad, and the ugly? Journal of Marketing Education, 21, 106-117.

44.

McLaughlin

Fennick

(1987). Collaborative writing student interaction and response. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 14, 214-216.

45.

Okoli

Pawlowski

S. D.

(2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42, 15-29.

46.

Park

R. C.

Kristol

D. S.

(1976). Student peer evaluations. Journal of Chemical Education, 53, 177-178.

47.

Petty

R. E.

Harkins

S. G.

Williams

K. D.

Latane

(1977). The effects of group size on cognitive effort and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 579-582.

48.

Pfaff

Huddleston

(2003). Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork? Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 37-45.

49.

Saavedra

Kwun

S. K.

(1993). Peer evaluation in self-managing work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 450-462.

50.

Sharp

(2006). Deriving individual student marks from a tutor’s assessment of group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 329-343.

51.

Sinclair

K. E.

(1997). Workforce competencies of college graduates. In O’Neil

H. F.

(Ed.), Workforce readiness: Competencies and assessment (pp. 103-120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

52.

Slavin

R. E.

(1988). Cooperative learning and student achievement. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 31-33.

53.

Strong

J. T.

Anderson

R. E.

(1990). Free-riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data. Journal of Marketing Education, 12(2), 61-67.

54.

Tarricone

Luca

(2002). Employees, teamwork, and social independence: A formula for successful business? Team Performance Management, 8, 54-59.

55.

Thacker

R. A.

Yost

C. A.

(2002). Training students to become effective workplace team leaders. Team Performance Management, 8, 89-95.

56.

(2005). Peer-and self assessment to reveal the ranking of each individual’s contribution to a group project. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16, 197-205.

57.

Tyagi

P. K.

(2008). Social loafing behavior in marketing research projects (Working Paper). San Diego: California State University at San Diego.

58.

Vance

(2007, February 2). College graduates lack key skills, report says. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(22), A30.

59.

Ward

M. A.

(2005). An empirical assessment of peer review reliability: The ipsitive instrument paradox. Journal of Education for Business, 81, 35-40.

60.

Weldon

Gargano

G. M.

(1988). Cognitive loafing: The effects of accountability and shared responsibility on cognitive effort. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 159-171.

61.

Wilcoxson

L. E.

(2006). “It’s not fair!”: Assessing the dynamics and resourcing of teamwork. Journal of Management Education, 30, 798-808.

62.

Williams

D. L.

Beard

J. D.

Rymer

(1991). Team projects: Achieving their full potential. Journal of Marketing Education, 13(2), 45-53.

63.

Zhang

Johnston

Kilic

G. B.

(2008). Assessing the reliability of self- and peer rating in student group work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 329-340.

64.

Zhang

Ohland

M. W.

(2009). How to assign individualized scores on a group project: An empirical evaluation. Applied Measurement in Education, 22, 290-308.