Grading the group effort
Evaluating moderation models for facilitating meaningful collaboration
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19378463 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Bhavani Sridharan (0000-0002-2217-949X, Australian Catholic University), Jade McKay (0000-0002-8261-7383, Australian Catholic University, corresponding author), David Boud (0000-0002-6883-2722, Deakin University), Jamie Mustard (Deakin University) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 51 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 118-136 |
| Publication date | 2026-01-02 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0260-2938 • E-ISSN: 1469-297X |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/02602938.2025.2584130 |
| OpenAlex | W4417106281 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 37 |
Effective collaborative group work (CGW) is a cornerstone of workforce preparation, fostering essential teamwork and problem-solving skills, with peer assessment (PA) playing a crucial role in mitigating issues such as social loafing and uneven contributions. However, challenges in honesty and engagement limit its effectiveness. PA moderation offers a solution, yet its impact on performance and learning is underexplored. This study examines three moderation models – linear, non-linear and curvilinear – across 657 students, considering performance levels, cognitive biases, maturity and study mode. A paired t-test shows only the fully corrective model – penalising both under- and over-contributors – significantly affects scores, suggesting it effectively promotes teamwork and supports students with lower cognitive bias. Multifactor ANOVA highlights significant effects of maturity, performer type and cognitive biases, with instances of interaction between bias and study mode. The study emphasises developing evaluative judgement skills for commencing and off-campus students and provides insights for effective PA moderation in CGW settings
Evaluation methods · Focus group · Group dynamic · Group work · Higher education · Moderation · Conflict Management and Negotiation · Software Engineering Techniques and Practices · Team Dynamics and Performance
IBM SPSS Statistics 26 Step by Step
The Future of Student Self-Assessment
Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education
The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance
Set Correlation and Contingency Tables
Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education
Designing effective peer assessment processes in higher education
Arbitrariness in the peer review process
Developing student competence through peer assessment
Advantages of authentic assessment for improving the learning experience and employability skills of higher education students
The effects of peer judgements on teamwork and self-assessment ability in collaborative group work
Peer assessment in university teaching
Student voice in assessment and feedback (2011–2022)
Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students
Peer assessment as a learning and self-assessment tool
Rigour in moderation processes is more important than the choice of method
Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education
Student perceptions of collaborative group work (CGW) in higher education
Do they know what they know? Accuracy in teacher candidates' self‐assessments and its influencing factors
Peer Assessment
| Highly cited | No |
|---|