How

Stages of implementation

Overview

1. Academics determine if group learning and assessment tasks necessary to achieve learning outcomes
2. Academic identifies weighting for group assessment task and key assessment criteria for marking the group submission
3. Academic explains how group marks are adjusted into individual marks using SPARK and method for formulating groups
4. Academic develops assessment criteria and rating scale to be used calculating the adjustment factor, in collaboration with students and after considering past student feedback
5. Academic arranges for subject and student details to be entered into SPARK to enable online student access
6. Students, conscious of assessment criteria used in project/task and groupwork, work on group task culminating in submission of group project/task
7. Academic monitors groups during completion of group project/task
8. Students reflect on group process in completing task and rate all members of own team including self against agreed criteria within a rating period
9. Academic collects and assesses group projects/tasks
10. Academic communicates group project mark to each group
11. Academics consults SPARK for adjustment factors and apply to group mark
12. Academic provides each individual student with summative feedback (i.e. the adjusted individual mark)
13. Academic may provide each individual student with formative feedback
14. Student reflects on RPF and SAPA factor to decide how future behaviour may change to improve collaboration, interpersonal and reflection capabilities
15. Academic evaluates effectiveness (eg. online surveys, focus groups, ones own reflection)

Step-by-Step for academics

1. Academic determines if group learning and assessment tasks necessary to achieve learning outcomes
2. Academic identifies weighting for group assessment project/task and key assessment criteria for marking the group submission
3. Academic explains how group marks are adjusted into individual marks using SPARK and method for formulating groups
4. Academic develops assessment criteria and rating scale to be used calculating the adjustment factor, in collaboration with students and after considering past student feedback
5. Academics arranges for subject and student details to be entered into SPARK to enable online student access
6. Academic monitors groups during completion of group task
7. Academic collects and assesses group projects/tasks
8. Academic communicates group project mark to each group
9. Academic consults SPARK for adjustment factors and applies to group mark
10. Academic provides each individual student with summative feedback (i.e. the adjusted individual mark)
11. Academic may provide each individual student with formative feedback
12. Academic evaluates effectiveness

Step-by-Step for students

1. Students familiarise themselves with group assessed project/task and criteria academic has set for marking it
2. Students form groups in agreement with academic
3. Students agree assessment criteria used for rating self and peers
4. Each student familiarises themselves with SPARK
5. Students, conscious of assessment criteria used in project/task and groupwork, work on group task culminating in submission of group project/task
6. Each student reflects on group process in completing project/task and rates all members of own team including self against agreed criteria within a rating period. Review and resubmission possible until specified cutoff date and time.
7. Each student receives mark for group project
8. Each individual student receives adjusted individual mark as summative feedback based on RPF factor
9. Each individual student receives adjusted formative feedback based on SAPA factor
10. Each reflects on RPF and SAPA factor to decide how future behaviour may change to improve collaboration, interpersonal and reflection capabilities
11. Students participate in evaluation conducted by academic

How to Interpret SPARK Factors

A sample SPARK^PLUS results screen is shown in the figure above. The RPF factor of 0.91 indicates that overall this student performed below the average performance of their team (1 representing average performance) while the SAPA factor of 1.05 (close to 1) suggests that the student was aware of their underperformance. The triangle indicators for each criterion provide further feedback as to this student’s individual strengths and weaknesses. They show the criterion for which the student underrated their performance the most compared to the evaluation of their performance by their peers was “helped to manage team conflict and resolve disagreements”. Conversely the criterion for which the student overrated their performance the most compared to the evaluation of their performance by their peers was “reliable, met required deadlines, attended group meetings, punctual”. In this case since only one category of criteria was used the category and overall feedback factors (RPF and SAPA) are the same. The feedback comments from the student’s team peers are provided anonymously in the scroll down window.

How to Interpret Individuals SPARK Radar Diagrams

The blue envelope in the radar diagrams represents the SAPA factors. When this envelope exceeds 1 it indicates that the student believes their contribution was higher than the average assessment they received from their team peers. The red envelope represents the RPF factors. When this envelope exceeds 1 students have contributed more than the average of their team peers.

The above radar diagram provides information about a student’s performance in terms of the three attribute categories. A quick look at the diagram shows that in the Engineering Ability category the student contributed the same as the average contribution of their team and the student's rating of their own performance agrees with the average rating they received from their team peers.

Conversely in the Knowledge Base and Professional Skills categories the student performed slightly below the average contribution of their team and the SAPA envelope shows they rated their own performance much higher than they were rated by their team peers.

The differences between a student’s assessment of their contribution compared to their peers’ assessment can be due to a number of factors including:

Their contribution has not been fairly assessed by their peers.

Their peers have not provided feedback to the student in regard to their performance and hence they are unaware of the differences between their self and their team peers’ perceptions.

The student may be aware of their true performance level but deliberately chose to inflate their ratings in an attempt to increase their overall mark.

How to Interpret Group SPARK Radar Diagrams

The interpretation of the group radar diagram is similar to that of the individual radar diagram. Except in the case as above where students have marked individual submissions. In this case the RPF (red) envelope reports whether the quality of a student's individual submission was considered to be above or below the average of those marked by the group.