Designing Online Group Assessments

• Group work can build authentic workplace skills, including collaborative writing, delegation, planning, listening and defending ideas [5, 14], especially when assessment tools are well integrated [8]. It can also support the development intercultural awareness and adaptability [9].
• When well-designed, students feel proud of the outputs and find the process challenging but rewarding. Bhardwaj (2020) [8] found that students in small-group simulations reported increased enjoyment and motivation, especially when tasks were authentic and business oriented (similar results found in [3]).

• Unequal division of work is one of the most persistent and well-documented challenges across all group work [e.g. 10, 11, 12] – with tutors sometimes perceiving it as much if not more than students do [1], and this is harder to manage in a fully online and asynchronous environment.
• Scheduling and time zone issues are common in distance learning scenarios [1, 8], as are challenging group work dynamics where students do not know each other in-person [2, 3].
• Intercultural group work can further lead to misunderstandings from difference in communication style and expectations [9].
• Lack of clarity on roles, grading, and how to access support can cause issues if not built in [1].
  • Finding a balance on technical complexity can be challenging – any tools or outputs should be achievable to all in the group, but more technically capable students can feel frustrated if they feel limited by technology boundaries [1, 2].

• Students experience a mix of ‘pleasant’ and ‘unpleasant’ emotions throughout working in a group project – one study which tracked these emotions through a project found that at the mid-point of the project unpleasant emotions slightly outweighed pleasant ones [3]
• Anxiety is the most common self-reported emotion, and this is often linked to self-belief and confidence rather than the task or process itself [3] – these might be countered by building in activities ahead of the group project that allow students to build confidence, and activities within the group project that allow them to develop confidence, trust and understanding of the project goals [3, 6]
• Sources of positive emotions included the real-world relevance of the task [3]
• Students also noted worry about when and whether to contact a tutor if things go wrong, and how this might affect their grade [1], highlighting a need for clarity on the tutor role during a group project
• Low trust levels, especially in culturally diverse groups, can reduce engagement and collaboration [13]

• Tasks based on authentic, real-world problems are more motivating and better received by students [1, 3, 5] – building this as the foundation of the project and making this clear to students is key [5,6]
• Alignment between learning outcomes, activities, and assessment is essential [5, 6] – ask “what learning goal is the collaborative work addressing” and make sure this is reflected in the assessment criteria as well [6]
• Students often feel pride in their final output [2, 3], so consider finding a way to showcase or celebrate outputs, which may increase motivation in the project [2]

• A key distinction in how groups work together is whether they work cooperatively or collaboratively [1, 2]:
  • Collaborative – the group works through the whole project together
  • Cooperative – the group divides tasks into sub-tasks and work individually before bringing them together into the final output
• Collaborative working is often more employability-aligned, but harder to manage [1]
• Cooperative working is often more practical, but risks reduced dialogue and true group-work [1,2]
• Research suggests that even when a collaborative model is intended, groups will often default to a cooperative way of working [1,2]: “if a group could find a way to split work, that is what they did”. This is likely linked to concerns from students around some group members not ‘pulling their weight’ [1]
• ‘Positive interdependence’ can be used to design linked tasks where students only succeed where the whole group succeeds. This can increase motivation and collaboration, but risks making sceptical students more sceptical of group work. [1]

• There are two ‘axes’ of assessment within a group project [2,6]:
  • Group vs individual – are you grading the group, or the individual (or both)
  • Product vs process – are you grading the product, or the process (or both)
• Group marking makes many student sceptical, particularly as uneven workload is a well-documented challenge [1,2]
• Individual marking recognises individual contributions and highlights uneven work, and one study identifies this as the best strategy, even though it places a higher load on the tutor [1]. Others advocate for the integration of flexible assessment frameworks that account for individual contributions and learning styles. [11]
• In practice, assessment/grade weighting can be split across the axes:
  • One model split marks across the product/process and individual/group categories, awarding a portion of marks across all four ‘quadrants’ [2]
  • Other combinations included: group output + individual presentation, peer assessment with small weighting, self-assessment or reflection [1,4]

• Before students start, asking them to self-assess their working style can help surface expectations and differences early on [6]. Providing cultural sensitivity training and using platforms with multilingual support further enhance accessibility. 
• Students need clear information up front: the goal, the essential tasks, roles in the group, timescales, collaboration approaches, problem resolution mechanisms, and tools to be used [1,4,5]
  • Group agreements form a valuable early group activity, allowing groups to decide and agree on communication styles, decision-making processes, conflict resolution, and how to support each other [6]
  • Providing suggested structured documentation approach (e.g. shared docs, meeting notes, tracked changes) can support group working [1]
  • The use of project management tools, such as Padlet or Microsoft Teams, has been shown to improve coordination and accountability [14]
• Transparency about levels of contribution expected from all group members can help reduce anxiety and confusion [1]
• Providing clear milestones can help group cohesion and provide clarity on progression. Phrase milestones as concrete and actionable – e.g. ‘you should have done x’ rather than ‘you should be working on x’ is clearer and less open to different interpretations amongst the group [5]

• Diverse groups are favoured to provide a mix of viewpoints and promote interaction (diversity in terms of skills, working methods, and working ethics) [1]. However, inclusive design is essential to enabling diverse groups to work together as international students may feel excluded or marginalized in group settings without it. [15]
• Groups can be self-selected, tutor formed, or randomly set-up, though no studies that this review draws from examined random set-up:
  • Self-selecting groups can boost confidence as students will usually work with people they know, but it may reduce skills, diversity and learning from each other [4] – however, in the context of fully asynchronous online courses, this impact may not be as large
  • Tutor-led group formation enables skills-based diversity within a group, if the tutor has built in methods to get to know students in advance of the group set-up, but students may feel less confident working with people they don’t know [1,4, 13]
• Distributing technically capable students across groups can help prevent one group having a (perceived) unfair advantage
• Trust-building is important within a group, moreso than deep relationship building, and can be supported by structured introductory activities [1]
• Having a group leader, especially where the leader is agreed upon by the team, is linked to more successful groups [1]

• Tools should be: easy to use, appropriate for the task and process, and facilitate collaboration – a good tool selection can encourage interaction [1]
• Synchronous tools (e.g. Teams): direct messaging was most used and positively evaluated by students for task support and participation, but synchronous communication can be challenging for a cohort of asynchronous distance learning working across different time zones and working habits [1,5] – this is particularly pertinent for ‘professional students’ (students who are also working full times roles [7])
• Asynchronous tools (e.g. forums): popular choice for ease, which also makes participation visible – this can be useful for seeing participation amongst the group, but can also make students feel monitored, with some then worried about looking less knowledgeable than their peers [1]. Informal relaxed communication spaces are important for group formation and trust building [16].
• Use of collaborative documents (shared Microsoft documents, blogs, wikis) are rated positively [1]
• Video and voice communication was rarely used, even when synchronous tools like Teams were used – most groups defaulted to text-based communication [1]
  • One study utilised a video conferencing software for collaboration and final presentation, which was well used, with tutorials signposted from the start [5]. As the groups had to use the video conferencing software for their final presentation, they may have been more motivated to use it for collaboration as well [5]
• One study used live sessions (hosted by the tutor) with pre-assigned breakout rooms to replicate in-person seminars hosted before the start of the group project [4]

• The teacher experience of group projects is an under-explored area. Some research suggests that the role of the teacher strongly impacts the success of group work [9] but its not clear exactly how this happens.
• Before:
  • Designing a clear, authentic task with well-aligned assessment, clear marking strategy, preparing resources and deciding on group formation strategy [1,4,5]
• During:
  • The tutor involvement is mixed and debated in the literature – some suggest that early active involvement can help but that tutors should then step back into a monitoring/supporting role [1], and others suggest a very limited tutor role
  • Tutor presence on group-collaboration forums can make students feel monitored and less open [1]
  • Students need to know when and how to contact the tutor [1,3], with one suggestion for achieving this being a dedicated forum to ask the tutor questions about the project [1]
• After:
  • Students need an opportunity to debrief, celebrate outputs and achieve closure on the project [1]

[1] Donelan, H. and Kear, K. (2023) ‘Online group projects in higher education: persistent challenges and implications for practice’, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 36, pp. 435–468. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12528-023-09360-7 

[2] Donelan, H. and Kear, K. (2016) ‘Evaluating assessment strategies for online group work’, presented at Horizons in STEM Higher Education Conference, Leicester, UK. Available at: https://oro.open.ac.uk/46765/ 

[3] Hilliard, J. et al. (2019) ‘Exploring the emotions of distance learning students in an assessed, online, collaborative project’, in EDEN Annual Conference Proceedings, Bruges. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349102522 

[4] University of Bath (2021) ‘Case study: Group work with peer assessment – supporting students in the online environment’, Learning and Teaching Hub, University of Bath. Available at: https://teachinghub.bath.ac.uk/guide/group-work-with-peer-assessment-case-study/ 

[5] Lemke, D. (2016) ‘Successes and lessons learned: Designing online group presentations’, Northwestern University School of Professional Studies Distance Learning Blog. Available at: https://sites.northwestern.edu/spsdl/2016/05/31/successes-lessons-learned-designing-online-group-presentations/ 

[6] White Vidarte, E. (2025) ‘Alone together: Making group work work in the asynchronous online classroom’, EDVICE Exchange Blog, Temple University. Available at: https://sites.temple.edu/edvice/2025/03/31/crafting-space-for-student-belonging-part-vii-alone-together-making-group-work-work-in-the-asynchronous-online-classroom/ 

[7] Risepoint (2025) Voice of the Online Learner: UK Edition. Available at: https://risepoint.co.uk/insights/voice-of-the-online-learner-2025/ 

[8] Bhardwaj, J. (2020) “Working with others and enjoying it: CS1 students’ experience of small-group collaboration on a business simulation,” IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Uppsala, Sweden, 2020, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1109/FIE44824.2020.9274161. 

[9] Bergman, B., Van Maele, J., Spencer-Oatey, H., & Negretti, R. (2025). Teacher experience of intercultural group work in higher education: A scoping review . Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 9(2). https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.6015 

[10] Kaminski, M.R., Raspovic, A. and Munteanu, S.E. (2024) ‘Enhancing teamwork in higher education: Experiences of podiatry students using SPARKPLUS for self‐ and peer‐assessment in group work’, Journal of foot and ankle research, 17(4). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jfa2.70010. 

[11] Kutuzov, A.I. and Bogdanova, A.V. (2025) ‘Assessment Tools for Students’ Group and Teamwork in Higher Education: A Systematic Literature Review’, Vysšee obrazovanie v Rossii (Print), 34(4), pp. 118–143. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2025-34-4-118-143. 

[12] McKay, J., & Sridharan, B. (2024). Student perceptions of collaborative group work (CGW) in higher education. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 49(2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2227677 

[13] Poort, I., Jansen, E. and Hofman, A. (2020) ‘Does the group matter? Effects of trust, cultural diversity, and group formation on engagement in group work in higher education’, Higher Education Research & Development, 41(2), pp. 511–526.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1839024

[14] Hassen, H. (2024) ‘The use of a project management tool in distance education to enhance students’ engagement in group work’, Journal of learning development in higher education [Preprint], (30). Available at: https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi30.1146. 

[15] Qu, Xiao & Cross, Beth. (2023). UDL for inclusive higher education—What makes group work effective for diverse international students in UK?. International Journal of Educational Research. 123. 10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102277. 

[16] Kurek, M., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2019). The formative role of teaching presence in blended virtual exchange. Language learning and technology, 23(3), 52-73.