Cogent Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oaed20

Group work assessment intervention project—A

methodological perspective

Eva Hammar Chiriac & Karin Forslund Frykedal

To cite this article: Eva Hammar Chiriac & Karin Forslund Frykedal (2022) Group work
assessment intervention project—A methodological perspective, Cogent Education, 9:1,
2095885, DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Published online: 05 Jul 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1946

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaed20
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Group work assessment intervention project—A
methodological perspective
Eva Hammar Chiriac1* and Karin Forslund Frykedal2

Received: 09 December 2021

Accepted: 23 June 2022
*Corresponding author: Eva Hammar
Chiriac, Department of Behavioural
Sciences and Learning, Division of
Psychology, Linköping University,
Linköping SE-581 83, Sweden
E-mail: eva.hammar.chiriac@liu.se
Reviewing editor:
Sammy King Fai HUI, Curriculum &
Instruction, The Education University
of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
Abstract: The assessment of individual knowledge and abilities should be fre­
quently undertaken when learning is developed in interactions with other students,
such as in group work and/or cooperative learning. Previous research reveals that
group work assessment is a neglected research area, and this applies in particular
to group work assessment interventions studies. The focus of this article is metho­
dological, and its aim is to provide a reflective and critical account of a group work
assessment intervention project, and the implications of the different choices made
in this process. The intervention project that was scrutinized had a mixed-method
longitudinal quasi-experimental design, and interventions in the form of shorter
educational sessions were central to the project. Both qualitative and quantitative
data were collected, analyzed, and compiled. The methodological issues discussed
and problematized were the importance of (a) establishing collaboration with tea­
chers; (b) well-thought-out and delimited methodological choices, and subsequent
consequences; and (c) including both teachers and students to secure successful
effects of the interventions. As a result of the study, it was concluded that inter­
vention could be beneficial as a means of increasing the scientific knowledge in
relation to intervention studies, and also to the emerging discourse on group work
assessment.

Subjects: Social Psychology; Group Processes; Educational Research; Education Studies;

Primary/Elementary Education

ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Eva Hammar Chiriac is a professor of Psychology
at the Department of Behavioural Sciences and
Learning, Linköping University, Sweden. Her
scientific activity lies within the social psycholo­
gical research field with a strong focus on group
research, mainly connected to groups, group
processes, learning and education. Her current
research project concerns group work assess­
ment, school climate and relations in schools,
and problem-based learning.
Karin Forslund Frykedal, PhD, Professor of
Education at the Department of Social and
Behavioural Studies, University West. Her scien­
tific activity lies within educational research with
a focus on leadership, group processes and
learning in small educational groups. Her current
research project concerns group work and group
work assessment in educational context and
parental education groups in primary health
care.
Many teachers express feelings of uncertainty
about how to make group work assessments and
experience group work assessment as a complex
and challenging issue. The teachers are uncertain
about the purpose of the assessment, what
should be assessed and by whom, and whether
the assessment should be made at individual or
group level. One special challenge concerns the
difficulty of disentangling one individual student’s
knowledge and abilities from the groups joint
work when assessing. The focus of this article is
methodological, and its aim is to provide
a reflective and critical account of a group work
assessment intervention project, and the impli­
cations of the different choices made in this
process.

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 15
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

Keywords: Cooperative learning; group work assessment; group work; intervention project;
methodological aspects

1. Introduction
Since as early as 1990, there has been scientific support for intervention in educational settings as
a means for developing pedagogical practice in cooperative situations (Ashman & Gillies, 1997;
Gillies & Ashman, 1996). Employing short educational interventions yields positive results in both
group work efficiency and productivity. These results have since been confirmed by a number of
studies showing that a relatively small effort generates positive results for work and learning in
groups or cooperative leaning (CL), (Gillies, 2016; Johnson & Johnson, 2002, 2015; Martinez Lirola,
2016a, 2016b; Roseth et al., 2008; Slavin, 2014). Correspondingly, research has shown that group
work assessment greatly influences both efficiency and productivity in group work/CL (Forslund
Frykedal et al., 2021; Hammar Chiriac et al., 2019b; Johnson & Johnson, 2021; R. A. Lotan, 2003;
Slavin & Madden, 2021). Although we have not been able to find any intervention studies demon­
strating increased knowledge and ability in relation to group work assessment, we argue that the
same applies to it. Hence, our starting point is that intervention can also be beneficial as a means
of developing scientific knowledge and the pedagogical practice vis-á-vis group work assessment.

2. Background
On many occasions in educational settings, an assessment of individuals’ knowledge and abilities
need to be accomplished in situations where learning is developed in interactions with other
students in a social context, such as in group work/CL. While group work is customarily defined
as “pupils working together as a group or a team” (Blatchford et al., 2003, p. 155), CL is a specific
approach to group work where cooperation with clear structures, enhanced student activity, and
common goals are the basic prerequisites for learning (Ferguson-Patrick & Jolliffe, 2018; Gillies,
2007; Kagan & Stenlev, 2013). Although we acknowledge the differentiation between group work
and CL, they are both pedagogical methods for organizing classroom activity where students’
learning is developed from a joint activity (Barkley et al., 2005; Davidson, 2021; Davidson & Major,
2014; Frey et al., 2009) and thereby faces similar complexities and challenges when it comes to
assessment (Barblett & Maloney, 2010; Brookhart, 2013; Johnson & Johnson, 2004). Hence, group
work and CL can be discussed interchangeably in connection with assessment.

A comprehensive requirement in several countries, and at several levels in the education system
(e.g., Brookhart, 2013; Johnson & Johnson, 2004), is that teachers are expected to assess each
student’s level of knowledge and ability in relation to knowledge requirements. This goal- and criteria-
related assessment system is also required as means for group work assessment. However, reconcil­
ing the demands of individual assessment while fulfilling the requirement to teach cooperative
abilities (Johnston & Miles, 2004; Ross & Rolheiser, 2003; Swan et al., 2006; Webb, 1997) poses
a challenging and complex task for teachers at all levels in the educational system (Brookhart,
2011, 2013; Forsell et al., 2020, 2021; Forslund Frykedal & Hammar Chiriac, 2011, 2016; Martinez
Lirola, 2016a, 2016b; van Aalst, 2013). Group work assessment (the concept is henceforth used for
both group work assessment and CL assessment) also entails additional dilemmas, compared to
traditional individual assessment, such as process skills becoming salient assessment criteria, and the
difficulty of disentangling each individual’s knowledge and contribution from another’s. In summary,
when conducting group work assessment, teachers are faced with new challenges for which they are
not always adequately prepared. One way of reducing this problem could be an intervention study
regarding group work assessment to examine a small educational effort.

2.1. Intervention studies in connection with group work and/or CL

Most intervention studies in connection with group work and/or CL have focused on (a) imple­
mentation and effects (e.g., Ferguson-Patrick & Jolliffe, 2018; Healy et al., 2018; Martinez Lirola,
2016a, 2016b); and (b) identifying key factors for successful group work/CL (e.g., Gillies, 2016;
Gillies & Boyle, 2010, 2013; Johnson & Johnson, 2002, 2015; Roseth et al., 2008), reporting

Page 2 of 15
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

several positive outcomes. Research which included comparing groups who received an inter­
vention with control groups showed that interventions connected to group work and/or CL: (a)
promote academic knowledge, skills, and understanding (e.g., Ferguson-Patrick & Jolliffe, 2018;
Gillies, 2016; Johnson & Johnson, 2002, 2015; Martinez Lirola, 2016a, 2016b); (b) enhance
students’ achievement, socialization, motivation, and personal development (e.g., Roseth
et al., 2008; Slavin, 2014); and (c) increase CL achievement compared to individualistic and
competitive learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1994, 2002; Johnson et al., 1981). Although most
studies on CL have emphasized the positive outcomes resulting from its employment, there is
also research highlighting disagreements on, or criticism of, CL as an application and/or method
(Davies, 2009; Healy et al., 2018; Johnson & Johnson, 2021; Opdecam & Everaert, 2018).
Reduced learning, low-quality group work, and negative experiences of cooperative situations
may come from students and teachers’ perceptions of, and beliefs about, CL (i.e., the reduction
of grading-time and negative group processes). Further, it may also be problematic if teachers
believe that (a) assigning students to groups will automatically lead to learning based on
cooperation, (b) peer assessment solves the group work assessment problem, or (c) CL is easy
to organize and guide.

Two very relevant examples of intervention studies came to serve as inspiration for the design
and implementation of this project. The first was Gillies and Ashman’s (Ashman & Gillies, 1997;
Gillies & Ashman, 1996) study investigating whether teaching cooperative skills to students work­
ing as groups could increase their ability to use the groups’ potential. The results showed that
a relatively small effort yielded positive results in both group work efficiency and productivity.
The second study was Black et al.’s (2003) research on changes in teachers’ attitudes regarding the
introduction of formative assessment. The study focused on how researchers in collaboration with
teachers developed and implemented formative assessment, by using an educational intervention.
The results indicated that the teachers appropriated the benefits of using formative assessment.

Against this backdrop, we aim to contribute by increasing the knowledge concerning interven­
tion studies on group work assessment in cooperative situations. We will accomplish this by
focusing on methodological aspects, and by providing a reflective and critical account of an
intervention project, and the implications of the different choices made in this process.

2.2. Previous research on group work assessment

Teachers often highlight the perceived challenges in assessing students’ knowledge and abilities
in group work and/or CL, and this has been correspondingly problematized in the sparse research
of group work assessment (R. A. Lotan, 2014; Forsell et al., 2020; Forslund Frykedal & Hammar
Chiriac, 2011, 2016; R. A. Lotan, 2003; Ross & Rolheiser, 2003; van Aalst, 2013). Previous research
has problematized group work assessment by emphasizing issues of concern connected to the
assessment loop, what is primarily assessed (academic knowledge or process skills), and the level
on which the assessment is conducted (individual or group; Brookhart, 2013; Johnson & Johnson,
2004, 2021; Meijer et al., 2020; Ross & Rolheiser, 2003; Strijbos, 2016; van Aalst, 2013). Both
issues seem to generate different attitudes closely connected to assessment (Rosander et al.,
2020). Some researchers advocate that, regardless of whether the learning is developed in
a group situation, it is still the individual student’s knowledge that should be assessed and
graded (Brookhart, 2013; Forsell et al., 2020, 2021; Johnson & Johnson, 2004). A common
argument, often emphasized in research, concerns the difficulty of disentangling individual’s
knowledge from each other; instead, group work assessment is often based on the student’s
participation and contribution to the group. Thus, process skills and group work abilities, which
require cooperation, constitute the most common substrate for group work assessment (Forsell
et al., 2020, 2021; Martinez Lirola, 2016a, 2016b; van Aalst, 2013). Skills required both in the
educational context and in future working life are thereby also worth assessing, but whether or
not these skills should be graded has divided opinions (Brookhart, 2013; Frey et al., 2009;

Page 3 of 15
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

Martinez Lirola, 2016a, 2016b). One suggestion proposed is to assess learning and process
separately and differently.

Other critical issues presented in previous research regarding group work assessment concern
(a) how to assure quality and fairness (e.g., Kablan, 2014; Orr, 2010; van Aalst, 2013), thereby
enhancing the probability that students will regard the assessment as fair, and (b) who is in control
of the assessment loop (e.g., Forslund Frykedal & Hammar Chiriac, 2011, 2016; Ross & Rolheiser,
2003), given that peer assessment is often used as the ultimate solution for problems as regards
group work assessment (Johnson & Johnson, 2004) and the teacher is relatively absent in the
assessment process (Forsell et al., 2020). In addition, other issues—albeit not exclusive to group
work assessment only—concern (c) the purpose of the assessment—formative or summative
(Black, 2013; van Aalst, 2013; Wiliam, 2009, 2011), and (d) finding methods for collecting empirical
evidence that can provide the basis for the assessment (Dijkstra et al., 2016; Meijer et al., 2020;
Messick, 1989).

Accordingly, previous research has not only identified the fact that group work assessment is
problematic, but that it is also a neglected research area (e.g., Forsell et al., 2020; Johnson &
Johnson, 2004; Ross & Rolheiser, 2003; van Aalst, 2013), and, consequently, there is a need for
research in this area. The use of an intervention could be one way to improve teachers and
students’ knowledge and ability to assess.

2.3. Social Interdependence theory and group worthy tasks

As the prevailing theory in CL (Deutsch, 1949; Johnson & Johnson, 2002, 2013; Lewin, 1948), the
social interdependence theory (SIT) is used as the theoretical framework for this project. According
to SIT, group members develop a degree of interdependence when they realize that working
together on a task can increase the probability of them achieving common goals.
Interdependence can be positive, and this creates opportunities for cooperation among group
members. Furthermore, positive interdependence causes conditions for increased individual
accountability. Interdependence might also be negative, and this can create competition among
group members. There might also be an absence of interdependence, signifying that students may
reach their goals independent of others in the group, and this does not provide opportunities for
interaction and cooperation between group members (Johnson & Johnson, 2002, 2013).

SIT emphasizes the conditions necessary to increase the cooperative potential of groups:
positive interdependence (i.e., the perception of being linked to other group members and the
realization that it is achieved through the pursuit of common goals and joint rewards), individual
accountability (i.e., each group member is responsible for their share of the work, and has
a willingness to help other group members); promotive interaction (i.e., group members encourage
each other’s efforts through discussions and explanations), interpersonal and small group skills
(i.e., enhancing the degree of trust among group members and their ability to resolve conflicts),
and group processing (i.e., group members discussing and evaluating their work). According to
Johnson and Johnson (2002, 2013), these conditions are crucial for promoting, affirming, and
maintaining effective working relationships among members. The presence of positive interdepen­
dence and individual accountability are two key features often stressed as defining CL in compar­
ison to conventional group work (Ahmar & Mahmood, 2010; Brookhart, 2013; Hammar Chiriac
et al., 2021; Johnson & Johnson, 2015, 2021; Martinez Lirola, 2016a, 2016b; Slavin, 2014).

The importance of designing a group task suitable for learning and working in interaction with
other students is well documented in previous research (Barkley et al., 2005; Cohen & Lotan, 2014;
Forslund Frykedal, 2008; Hammar Chiriac, 2008; Johnson & Johnson, 2004). Less discussed and
problematized is the fact that the design of the task also acts as a guideline for the assessment
loop (i.e., what type of assessment it will be possible to conduct, and in what way). Lotan’s (2003,
2014) model for creating a group worthy task may support teachers in planning and implementing
group work/CL, and also by extension the assessment loop. The following five characteristics are

Page 4 of 15
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

highlighted in the model: A group-worthy task (a) is open (i.e., it can be solved in more than one
way) and requires problem solving; (b) provides students with the opportunity to use wide-ranging
knowledge and abilities; (c) focuses on vital subject-based issues; (d) presupposes positive inter­
dependence and individual accountability; and (e) provides explicit assessment criteria.

There are several possible theories and models suitable, and we have chosen SIT and the idea of
the group worthy task to supply and increase knowledge concerning a methodological perspective
on the phenomenon, which is the subject of this study.

3. Method
Inspired by earlier intervention studies of group work, which revealed that shorter educational
sessions developed cooperative practices (Ashman & Gillies, 1997; Gillies & Ashman, 1996), we
wanted to investigate whether similar shorter educational sessions with teachers and students
could have comparable effects on group work assessment. We used a mixed-method longitudinal
quasi-experimental design, where both qualitative and quantitative data were collected, analyzed,
and compiled. Interventions in the form of shorter educational sessions were central to the project.
See, Figure 1 for an overview of data collection, intervention, and group work in each classroom.

3.1. Participants
The study was conducted in compulsory schools when students in years 5 and 8 were doing group
work in mathematics. Our choice of academic years was based on (a) whether the students were old
enough to be able to decide for themselves whether to participate or not, (b) teachers and students
were familiar with each other, and (c) the teachers were required to give an assessment in both years
and also a grade in year 8. The participants came from six classes attending five different schools in
Sweden. In order to promote variation, schools and participants from different social and geographi­
cal areas were included. In total, 140 students participated in the study. The classes included in the
study featured both heterogeneous and homogenous groups of students (Table 1 and Figure 2).

3.2. Data collection

Three different data collections methods were used to capture various perspectives of the participants
on their actions and experiences of group work assessment. To capture teachers and students’ own
perspectives, qualitative data were collected through interviews and observations. Quantitative data
were gathered through questionnaires to capture the participants’ general experiences of different parts
of the assessment loop. The various data collections, with the respective analysis, will each individually
but also together, contribute with knowledge concerning intervention studies of group work assessment

Figure 1. Design in one class­ Before Group work After

room before, during, and after
the intervention and group 4
work. Interviews
Group- Interviews
teachers Introduction Presentation
based teachers
Interventions

lessons

Focus groups
Focus groups
students
Video recording students

Questionnaires Questionnaires

students Assessment questionnaires students

Page 5 of 15
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

Table 1. Participants, including information about the type of school, year, classes, participating teachers and students
Type of school Year Num. of Classes Teachers Students in the Non-participating
(female/male) classes students
(girls/boys) (girls/boys)
Municipal provincial 5 1 2 (f) 18 (8 g /10 b) –
Municipal small town 5 1 1(m) 25 (14 g/11 b) 1 (b)
Municipal 8 1 1(f) 25 (10 g /15 b) –
medium-sized
Independent medium- 8 1 1(f) 28 (10 g /18 b) 5 (1 g/ 4 b)
sized
Independent 5 1 1(f) 27 (12 g /15 b) 3 (b)
suburban 8 1 1(m) 26 (14 g/ 12 b) –
In total
5 schools 3 Year 5 6 5 female 149 students 9 students
3 Year 8 2 male 70 year 5/ 4 Year 5/5 Year 8
79 year 8 1 girl/8 boys
68 girls/81 boys

in education. This diversity of data collection enabled the generation of different knowledge with regard
to intervention studies of group work assessment in education.

3.2.1. Interviews
To elucidate teachers and students’ experiences of group work assessment, both interviews and
focus groups were used. Utilizing interview guides with open-ended questions provided the oppor­
tunity to study in-depth teachers and students’ insider perspectives. Hence, the use of interviews
and focus groups enabled participants to express self-chosen aspects using their own words,
based on the project’s issues. We also wanted to capture if and how any changes occurred (a)
after participating in the project and the interventions, or (b) after participating in the project but
not the intervention (Figure 2). All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed.

3.2.2. Observations
In order to collect data of teachers and students’ actions and communications in practice,
observations were carried out with video recordings during the different parts of the group work
assessment project (Figure 1). Using these observations, the intention was to study how group
work assessments were implemented, and to examine if any changes occurred during the group
work. Unlike other data collection methods, observations enable the collection of information on
actual performance, in contrast to interviews and questionaries, where the participants themselves
decide what information to share.

3.2.3. Questionnaires
In order to capture the participants general experiences of different parts of the assessment loop,
two multiple choice questionnaires were applied (Figure 1). The intention of the first questionnaire,
distributed only to students, was to measure which factors influenced their attitudes towards
group work and group work assessment, and whether any changes occurred after participating in
(a) the group work and intervention, or (b) the group work but not the intervention (Figure 2).
The second shorter assessment questionnaire was distributed to both teachers and students after
each group work session (i.e., six times; Figure 1). The purpose of this questionnaire was to capture
the participants’ perceptions of (a) what was assessed, (b) what type of assessment was con­
ducted, and (c) who carried out the assessment. Further, the purpose was to study whether
teacher and/or students’ perceptions varied during the different sessions. When responding to
multiple choice questionnaires, the participants answered the same pre-assembled questions by
the researchers, which entailed comparisons between individuals and/or occasions. The individual

Page 6 of 15
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

participants responded anonymously to both questionnaires, but the group membership was
recorded so that comparisons between sessions were possible.
3.3. Interventions
The project consisted of two interventions in the form of short educational sessions. These were
administered (a) to both teachers and students, or (b) exclusively to teachers. The interventions
were randomly implemented in four classes (i.e., two in Year 5 and two in Year 8), and the two
other classes (i.e., one in each year) served as the control group and did not participate in any
intervention (Figure 2). The interventions comprised education on group work/CL and group work
assessment.

Figure 2. Layout for the

intervention.

The teachers’ interventions were implemented on two separate days, with two weeks in
between. The first day was theoretical, and contained theory and discussions on group work/
CL as a teaching strategy (e.g., how to create cooperation and group worthy tasks), and group
work assessment (e.g., different types of assessment strategies applicable to group work/CL).
The second day of the teacher intervention had an applied approach, where researchers and
teachers jointly examined various ways of collecting empirical evidence that could provide the
basis for the assessment, and how to document this information. In order to be able to
problematize various types of assessment strategies, both proactive and reactive ways of work­
ing with the assessment, as well as giving and receiving feedback, were considered. The final
task for the teachers was, in cooperation with a researcher, to produce an appropriate group
worthy assignment usable for both Years 5 and 8, respectively, and also to write a pedagogical
plan for the task. In addition to getting the teachers involved in the project, by drawing on
researchers and teachers’ complementary qualifications, the objective here was to contribute
with joint competence to a feasible group work assignment customized for each year, including
the assessment.

The students’ intervention was accomplished over the course of two to three hours in their
classroom. First, a theoretical part was conducted on how to improve group work and become
a well-functioning group; this also touched on a group contract, the evaluation, and assessment.
In addition, the students tried working on the group contract and the evaluation, as well as on the
self- and peer assessment in the second, applied part of the intervention.

Page 7 of 15
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

3.3.1. Setup and task

All classes, whether they received an intervention or belonged to the control group, used the same
setup to accomplish the group work, and the groups of students were given the same task. The
groups were allotted by the teachers composed of four students and mostly consisted of both girls
and boys. To be able to study whether—and how—the group work assessment changed over time,
the group work consisted of six lessons covering an introduction of the group work assignment,
four lessons during which teachers and students accomplished the group work, and an oral
presentation where each student group presented their joint product (Figure 1).

The objective for the group work task was that the students should develop their ability to select
and use the appropriate mathematical methods for performing calculations and solving the
(mathematical) assignment. The core content the students were working on in the task was
probability and statistic; they were specifically learning about how to use tables and diagrams to
describe the results of an investigation, and how to interpret data displayed in such tables and
diagrams. Problem solving was included in the assignment as additional core content, and this
involved learning more about strategies for mathematical problem solving in everyday situations.
The students were also expected to develop several skills during the work, such as analytical,
communication, conceptual, and collaborative abilities.

The task was designed to be suitable for learning and working in a group context. This setup thus
enabled positive interdependence, and individual and group accountability.

3.3.2. Group work assessment strategies

The mathematic teachers involved in this project chose to assess the students on the following
four abilities: (a) analytical ability—problematizing similarities and differences and consequences;
generalizing and drawing conclusions; (b) communication ability—reasoning, discussing, justifying,
and arguing for one’s own opinion; presentations in both written and oral form; (c) conceptual
ability—knowledge of important subject-based concepts, being able to use and relate the concepts
to each other; and (d) collaborative ability—active listening, participating, contributing, and taking
responsibility for both one’s own individual work, as well as the group’s common work (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Assessment in this Group level Individual level

project.
Who assesses Teachers Students Teachers Students

Types of assessment Formative Formative Formative Formative

Summative Summative Summative Summative

Assessment strategies Paper and pencil Paper and pencil

Ways to submit Digital technology Digital technology

empirical evidence Communicate Communicate

Perform Perform

Assessment strategies Communicate Self assessment Communicate Self assessment

Ways to carry out Read Peer assessment Read Peer assessment

assessment Examine Examine

Observe Observe

Page 8 of 15
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

As shown in Figure 3, assessments were carried out at both group and individual level; that is,
both the group’s common and the students’ individual knowledge and abilities were assessed with
regard to different parts of the group work. Both the teachers and the students implemented
assessment (i.e., who was responsible for the assessments). The types of assessments applied in
the project were both formative and summative.

As can be seen in Figure 3, with regard to assessment strategies, the students submitted
empirical evidence for assessment by way of (a) paper and pencil, (b) digital technology, (c)
communication, and (d) performance. Assessment strategies also affected the teachers’ methods
of implementing the assessment which included (a) communication, (b) reading documents, (c)
examining tests, and (d) observing abilities, performances, and the group’s processes and work.
The students used self- and peer assessment (e.g., evaluating their own and peers’ cooperation
and contribution) to support and supplement the teachers’ different assessment strategies.

3.4. Ethical considerations

The ethical principles provided by the British Psychological Society guidelines (British Psychological
Society, 2014) and the Swedish Research Council (2017), both emphasizing concern for participants’
interests, have been applied throughout the study. All participating teachers and students gave their
written informed consent to be involved in the study. All students took part in responding to the
questionnaires, but the researcher omitted the nine non-participant questionnaires (as described
previously), and they were not used further. The study was approved by the regional Research and
Ethics Committee at Linköping University, Sweden (Dnr 2013/401-31 & Dnr 2014/134-32).

4. Results
A core result is that the intervention project had effects on the teachers as well as the students.
The findings also highlighted the importance of implementing interventions to both groups of
participants (Hammar Chiriac et al., 2019a, 2019b; Rosander et al., 2020). Thus, participating in the
small educational sessions concerning group work assessment had a great effect on both teachers
“and students” knowledge (Hammar Chiriac et al., 2019a, 2019b ; Rosander et al., 2020).

By participating in the intervention, the teachers’ developed and expanded their mode of
languages use and included new modes into their repertoire in terms of terminology, concepts
and models concerning group work assessment. In other words, they developed their professional
language (Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, 2019a), an important springboard for collegial use
of professional language. Further, participating in the intervention had a direct influence for the
teachers use of languages when providing feedback as means for group work assessment to the
students (Forslund Frykedal, & Hammar Chiriac, 2018; Forslund Frykedal et al., 2021). The results
displayed the importance of teachers being able to adapt their linguistic repertoire to the stu­
dents’ level when giving feedback. According to the students in Year 5 the teacher “use to many
adult words” (Forslund Frykedal & Hammar Chiriac, 2018, p. 194), and the students wished that
the teachers used a more understandable language. Additionally, the findings revealed the
importance of teachers’ using appropriate language when providing written feedback as group
work assessment to the students (Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, 2021). For example, the
result displayed that teachers’ ought to convey feedback in distinct manageable units focusing on
the task. Hence, the teachers’ use of language, spoken and written, and whether they “speak the
same language” as the students or not, emerged as an important factor influenced by the
interventions.

Regarding the students, they increased their self- and collective efficacy and positive interde­
pendence during the project, thus the intervention gave them a more positive attitude towards
group work and group work assessment (Hammar Chiriac et al., 2019b; Rosander et al., 2020). By
participating in the intervention, the students’ confidence in their own ability (self-efficacy) and the
group’s ability to collectively work together (collective efficacy) were also strengthened (Hammar

Page 9 of 15
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

Chiriac et al., 2019b). Independent of year, or school, self-efficacy and interdependence predicted
collective efficacy in connection with group work assessment (Forslund Frykedal et al., 2021).

Based on the findings a theoretical model (Forslund Frykedal & Hammar Chiriac, 2011, 2016),
indented to present and elucidate current knowledge of group work assessment, has been further
developed. The model distinguished between different components of the assessment process; (a)
the purpose of the assessment, (b) whether the assessment is implemented at group or individual
level, (c) what is going to be assessed, (d) how the assessment will be carried out, and (e) who is
going to assess. Thus, the model systematized and elucidated the different parts of the assess­
ment loop integrated with and matched to the task and the working process. Group work assess­
ment is a complex process, and the model was designed to clarify and systematise relevant key
components of group work assessment.

5. Discussion and reflection

In this study the aim has been to contribute increased knowledge concerning intervention studies of
group work assessment in education. Inspired by earlier intervention studies of group work, which
revealed that a small educational effort developed the cooperative practice (Ashman & Gillies, 1997;
Gillies & Ashman, 1996), we implemented similar interventions on group work assessment. The focus
of this article is methodological, and its aim was to provide a reflective and critical account of an
intervention project on group work assessment, and the implications of the different choices made in
this process. By discussing and problematizing the methodological strategies of using educational
interventions as a means to enhance teachers and students’ ability to conduct group work assess­
ment, we wanted to shed light on an under-investigated field of research. In this section, the
following three issues are discussed and problematized (a) collaboration with teachers, (b) metho­
dological choices and consequences, and (c) the effects of the interventions.

5.1. Collaboration with teachers

One of the preconditions for the study was to establish collaboration with participating teachers,
as their involvement was essential for the implementation of all parts of the study.
Acknowledging that collaborating researchers and teachers contributed with complementary
knowledge and experiences was a cornerstone for the outcome (c.f. Black et al., 2003).
Furthermore, the study was based on the prerequisite of teachers letting the researchers into
their classrooms for several weeks while the teachers implemented the group work task. In
addition, teachers from four of the six schools also participated in an intervention. The teachers’
expectations, interest, motivation, and commitment, as well as their ability to apply theory in
practice, were probably among the factors that influenced the extent to which the teachers
appropriated the group work tasks as their own. On the other hand, findings from the study
show whether (a) it was the teachers themselves or the school who expressed an interest in
participating in the study, or (b) whether the teacher participating in the intervention or not, had
any visible effect on the teachers’ involvement (Forslund Frykedal et al., 2021; Hammar Chiriac &
Forslund Frykedal, 2019a, 2019b; Rosander et al., 2020). During the second day of the teacher
intervention, the importance of the teacher’s unique knowledge, experience, and contribution
became especially significant when the teachers were given the main responsibility—based on
the given framework for the study—of producing an appropriate and group-worthy task usable
for both Years 5 and 8, respectively. Although the teachers had to put in a lot of work to get
a suitable assignment together, the whole moment was characterized by high teacher commit­
ment and participation. A more challenging task for some of the teachers was appropriating and
implementing the group work task in their classroom. Some teachers managed this admirably,
but in other classrooms, the researchers, who were in the classroom in observational roles, had
to take on a more supportive role, and help the teacher with both structure and implementa­
tion. Unfortunately, we have no answer as to why this discrepancy arose, but the researchers’
openness to be flexible and sensitive in terms of working methods and role in each classroom
became an important means to establish beneficial collaboration with each teacher.

Page 10 of 15
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

5.2. Methodological choices and consequences

In view of group work assessment being a relatively new research area (e.g., Forsell et al., 2020;
Forslund Frykedal & Hammar Chiriac, 2011, 2016; Johnson & Johnson, 2004; Martinez Lirola,
2016a, 2016b; Ross & Rolheiser, 2003; van Aalst, 2013), we wanted to explore and increase
scientific knowledge in relation to group work assessment. The methodological choices made for
this study should be interpreted in the context of previous research which emphasizes challenges
and complexities (Brookhart, 2013; Forsell et al., 2020; Johnson & Johnson, 2004; Ross & Rolheiser,
2003; van Aalst, 2013). Given that group work assessment is an under-researched area, we used
a mixed-method longitudinal quasi-experimental design where both qualitative and quantitative
data were collected, analyzed, and compiled. The choice of approach was based on a desire to
capture various perspectives of the participants’ actions, and the experiences of group work
assessment with different assessment strategies, thereby increasing the likelihood of knowledge
contributions to the research area. Thus, the diversity of data collection was expected to contribute
with complementary scientific knowledge to the emerging discourse on group work assessment.
Even though the approach was appropriate for the underlying idea, it also caused some chal­
lenges, such as teachers having difficulties accomplishing all the assessments (Figure 1), and the
students (a) becoming tired of the project, and (b) filling out all questionnaires, thus negatively
influencing the quality of the findings. In hindsight, we acknowledge the potential risk that the use
of too many data collection methods (including too many assessment strategies) posed to the
quality of the study with respect to depth and profound knowledge.

5.3. Effects of the interventions

In this last part of the discussion and reflection, we problematize which choices concerning the
intervention in the form of a short educational session have influenced the outcome and the
development of the model presented in the results. Unlike most previous intervention studies in
connection with group work and/or CL (Ferguson-Patrick & Jolliffe, 2018; Gillies, 2016; Gillies &
Boyle, 2010, 2013; Martinez Lirola, 2016a, 2016b; Slavin, 2014), we wanted to include both
teachers and students in the project, and give both groups of participants interventions to
determine whether it was possible to increase both teachers and students’ knowledge and ability
with regard to group work assessment. The choice was based on a desire to obtain comprehensive
scientific knowledge regarding the effect of interventions concerning group work assessment
per se, but also to determine whether interventions directed toward either teachers or students
had diverse effects. The results confirm that the approach of including both teachers and students
in the project, and giving both groups of participants interventions with complementary informa­
tion, broadened the scientific knowledge concerning intervention studies in the emerging discourse
on group work assessment. Even though the approach was appropriate, it might also have affected
the depth and/or the width of the results negatively, by causing more superficial results, and thus
compromising the quality of the findings. There is also the possibility that the effect of the
intervention, to some extent, could be due to the participants’ awareness of being a part of
a project about group work assessment, in other words the participants’ awareness of being
observed and filmed resulted in them unconsciously modifying their behavior. That only participa­
tion in the project is the most likely explanation for the effect is however, disproved by the results
from several studies in the project (Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, 2019a; Hammar Chiriac
et al., 2019b; Rosander et al., 2020).

5.4. Limitations
As we intended to study group work assessment, we wanted a group focus. Focusing on “the
group” had implications for study units and the random sampling of groups, but also for the
analyses (Forslund Frykedal et al., 2021; Hammar Chiriac et al., 2019b; Rosander et al., 2020). One
reflection, based on all the facts at hand, is that it would have been beneficial to be able to track
individual answers in, for instance, the analysis of the questionnaires. A careful consideration of
the ethical implications of this is recommended, along with its consequences for the project. In our
desire to explore and increase scientific knowledge in relation to the emerging discourse of group
work assessment, we included too much in the project, both in terms of methods and assessment

Page 11 of 15
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

strategies. A more limited study with well-balanced data collection methods and assessment
strategies in relation to the purpose of the study and the desired knowledge contribution could,
for that reason, have been more advisable.

6. Conclusions
In this article, we argue that group work assessment is a neglected research area and contend
that there is a need to develop scientific knowledge relating to it. By presenting, discussing, and
problematizing methodological perspectives on a group work assessment intervention project, and
by examining the implications of the different choices made during this process, we have con­
tributed knowledge to the emerging discourse regarding group work assessment.

Findings from the project have emphasized the importance of collaboration between research­
ers and teachers, and utilized complementary knowledge and experience from both parts. We
found that the teachers’ commitment and participation was generally high, and therefore con­
tributed to a successful implementation of the outcome of the intervention project. Important
means for beneficial collaboration highlighted in the project was the researchers’ ability to be
flexible and sensitive in establishing collaboration with participating teachers. Moreover, the find­
ings confirmed that the approach of including both teachers and students in the project, and giving
both groups of participants interventions, resulted in contributions of broader scientific knowledge
concerning group work assessment intervention studies. Hence, the proposition that interventions
have an effect on both teachers and students’ knowledge of, and attitude to, group work assess­
ment has been confirmed. Consequently, one salient conclusion from the methodological choices
of the project is the importance of clearly defining the content of the project, and not including too
much. A future study could focus on the most salient exclusive issues vis-à-vis group work
assessment, namely, how to assess individual knowledge.

Acknowledgements teachers’ learning experience and achievement.

The authors would like to extend a special thanks to all
teachers and students who participated in this project.
The project would not have been achievable without
your contribution and your enthusiasm and willingness
to accomplish it, even though it was sometimes time
consuming.
Funding
This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council
under Grant number: VR dnr 721 2012-5476].
Author details
Eva Hammar Chiriac1
E-mail: eva.hammar.chiriac@liu.se
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7117-5620
Karin Forslund Frykedal2
E-mail: karin.forslund-frykedal@hv.se
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1391-3346
1
Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning,
Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
2
Department of Social and Behavioural Studies, University
West, Trollhättan, Sweden.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
author(s).
Citation information
Cite this article as: Group work assessment intervention
project—A methodological perspective, Eva Hammar
Chiriac & Karin Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education
(2022), 9: 2095885.
References
Ahmar, Z., & Mahmood, N. (2010). Effects of cooperative
learning vs. traditional instruction on prospective
Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 43(1),
151–164. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000001194
Ashman, A. F., & Gillies, R. M. (1997). Children’s co-
operative behaviour and interactions in trained and
untrained work groups in regular classrooms. Journal
of School Psychology, 35(3), 261–279. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0022-4405(97)00007-1
Barblett, L., & Maloney, C. (2010). Complexities of asses­
sing social and emotional competence and wellbeing
in young children. Australian Journal of Early
Childhood, 35(2), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/
183693911003500203
Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Howell Major, C. (2005).
Collaborative learning techniques. Jossey-Bass.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D.
(2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into prac­
tice. Open University Press.
Black, P. (2013). Formative and summative aspects of
assessment: Theoretical and research foundations in
the context of pedagogy. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.),
Research on classroom assessment (pp. 167–178).
Sage Publications.
Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003).
Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work.
International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1),
153–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/SO883-0355(03)
00078-8
British Psychological Society. (2014). Code of human research
ethics. https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/bps-
code-human-research-ethics-2nd-edition-2014
Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Grading and learning. Practices
that support student achievement. ASCD.
Brookhart, S. M. (2013). Grading and group work: How do
I assess individual learning when students work
together. ASCD.

Page 12 of 15
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885
Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (Eds.). (2014). Designing group
work. Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom.
Teachers College Press; Columbia University.
Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Boundary crossings:
Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and
problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in
College Teaching, 25(3&4), 7–55.
Davidson, N. (Ed.). (2021). Pioneering perspectives in
cooperative learning. Theory, research, and classroom
practice for diverse approaches to CL. Routledge.
Davies, W. M. (2009). Groupwork as a form of assessment:
Common problems and recommended solutions.
Higher Education, 58(4), 563–584. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10734-009-9216-y
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and
competition. Human Relations, 2(2), 129–152. https://
doi.org/10.1177/001872674900200204
Dijkstra, J., Latijnhouwers, M., Norbart, A., & Tio, R. A.
(2016). Assessing the ‘I’ in group work assessment:
State of the art and recommendations for practice.
Medical Teacher, 38(7), 675–682. https://doi.org/10.
3109/0142159X.2016.1170796
Ferguson-Patrick, K., & Jolliffe, W. (2018). Cooperative
learning for intercultural classrooms. Case studies for
inclusive pedagogy. Routledge.
Forsell, J., Forslund Frykedal, K., & Hammar Chiriac, E.
(2020). Group work assessment: Assessing social
skills at group level. Small Group Research, 51(1),
87–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419878269
Forsell, J., Forslund Frykedal, K., Hammar Chiriac, E., &
HUI, S. K. F. (2021). Teachers’ perceived challenges in
group work assessment. Cogent Education, 8(1),
1886474. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.
1886474
Forslund Frykedal, K. (2008). Students’ course of action in
groupwork: On levels of ambition and patterns of
behaviour in collaborative situations. [Published in
Swedish: Elevers tillvägagångssätt vid grupparbete.
Om ambitionsnivå och interaktionsmönster
i samarbetssituationer.] [Doctoral dissertation].
Linköping University.
Forslund Frykedal, K., & Hammar Chiriac, E. (2011).
Assessment of students’ learning when working in
groups. Educational Research, 53(3), 331–345.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011.598661
Forslund Frykedal, K., & Hammar Chiriac, E. (2016). To
make the unknown known: Assessment in group
work among students. In D. Bowen (Ed.), Student
learning: Assessment, perceptions and strategies (pp.
61–79). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Forslund Frykedal, K., & Hammar Chiriac, E. (2018).
Student Collaboration in GroupWork: Inclusion as
Participation. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 65(2), 183–198. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2017.1363381
Forslund Frykedal, K., Hammar Chiriac, E., & Rosander, M.
(2021). Efficacy beliefs and interdependence when
being assessed working in a group. Educational
Studies, 45(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03055698.2019.1706039
Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Evelove, S. (2009). Productive group
work. ASCD.
Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (1996). Teaching collabora­
tive skills to primary school children in
classroom-based work groups. Learning and
Instruction, 5(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0959-4752(96)00002-3
Gillies, R. M. (2007). Cooperative Learning: Integrating
theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on
cooperative learning: Issues of implementation.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 933–940.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.034
Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2013). Teachers’ reflections on
cooperative learning (CL): A two-year follow-up.
Teacher Education, 22(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10476210.2010.538045
Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative Learning: Review of
research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 41(3), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.14221/
ajte.2016v41n3.3
Hammar Chiriac, E. (2008). A scheme for understanding
group processes in problem-based learning. Higher
Education, 55(5), 505–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10734-007-9071-7
Hammar Chiriac, E., & Forslund Frykedal, K. (2019a).
Teachers’ talk about group work assessment before
and after participation in an intervention. Creative
Education, 10(9), 2045–2068. https://doi.org/10.4236/
ce.2019.109149
Hammar Chiriac, E., Rosander, M., & Forslund Frykedal, K.
(2019b). An educational intervention to increase
efficacy and interdependence in group work.
Education Quarterly Reviews, 2(2), 435–447. https://
doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.02.02.76
Hammar Chiriac, E., Sjøvold, E., & Björnstjerna Hjelm, A.
(2021). The effect of group-dynamics, collaboration
and tutor style on the perception of profession-based
stereotypes: A quasi-experimental pre- post-design
on interdisciplinary tutorial groups. BMC Medical
Education, 21(1), 379. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12909-021-02814-5
Hammar Chiriac, E., & Forslund Frykedal, K. (2021).
Individual feedback in connection with cooperative
learning – A possible way to support individual
accountability. Academic Letters, 2192. https://doi.
org/10.20935/AL2192
Healy, M., Doran, J., & McCutcheon, M. (2018). Cooperative
learning outcomes from cumulative experiences of
group work: Differences in student perceptions.
Accounting Education, 27(3), 286–308. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09639284.2018.1476893
Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., &
Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive,
and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47–62.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.1.47
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together
and alone (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together
and alone: Overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, 22(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/
10.1080/0218879020220110
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Assessing stu­
dents in groups: Promoting group responsibility and
individual accountability. Sage Publications.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2013). Joining together:
Group theory and group skill (11th ed.). Allyn and
Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2015). Theoretical
approaches to Cooperative Learning. In R. M. Gillies
(Ed.), Collaborative learning. Development in research
and practice (pp. 17–46). Nova Science Publisher Inc.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2021). Learning together
and alone. The history of our involvement in coop­
erative learning. In N. Davidson (Ed.), Pioneering per­
spectives in cooperative learning (pp. 44–62).
Routledge.
Johnston, L., & Miles, L. (2004). Assessing contributions to
group assignments. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 29(6), 751–768. https://doi.org/10.
1080/0260293042000227272
Page 13 of 15
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885
Kablan, Z. (2014). Comparison of individual answer and
group answer with and without structured peer
assessment. Research in Science & Technological
Education, 32(3), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02635143.2014.931840
Kagan, S., & Stenlev, J. (2013). Cooperative learning:
Cooperative structures for student active learning.
[Published in Swedish. Kooperativt lärande: samar­
betsstrukturer för elevaktiv undervisning.].
Studentlitteratur.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. Harper.
Lotan, R. A. (2003). Group-worthy tasks. Educational
Leadership, 60(6), 72–75.
Lotan, R. A. (2014). Crafting groupworthy learning tasks.
In E. G. Cohen & R. A. Lotan (Eds.), Designing group
work. Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (pp.
85–97). Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Martinez Lirola, M. (2016a). How to use cooperative
learning for assessing students’ emotional compe­
tences: A practical example in English studies at
tertiary level. Profile, 18(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/
10.15446/profile.v18n2.52593
Martinez Lirola, M. (2016b). Exploring the use of coop­
erative activities in a language subject to develop
students’ social competences at the University.
Ensayos, 31(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.18239/
ensayos.v31i1.900
Meijer, H., Hoekstra, R., Brouwer, J., & Strijbos, J. (2020).
Unfolding collaborative learning assessment literacy:
A reflection on current assessment methods in
higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 45(8), 1222–1240. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602938.2020.1729696
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational
measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–104). American
Council on Education and Macmillan.
Opdecam, E., & Everaert, P. (2018). Seven disagreements
about cooperative learning. Accounting Education, 27
(3), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.
2018.1477056
Orr, S. (2010). Collaborating or fighting for the marks?
Students’ experiences of group work assessment in
the creative arts. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 35(3), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602931003632357
Rosander, M., Forslund Frykedal, K., & Hammar Chiriac, E.
(2020). Attitudes towards being assessed in group
work: The effects of self-efficacy and collective effi­
cacy moderated by a short educational intervention.
Psychology in the Schools, 57(9), 1404–1416. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pits.22423
Roseth, C., Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2008). Promoting
early adolescents’ achievement and peer relation­
ships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin,
134(2), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.
134.2.223
Ross, J., & Rolheiser, C. (2003). Student assessment
practices in co-operative learning. In R. M. Gillies &
A. F. Ashman (Eds.), Co-operative learning. The social
and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups (pp.
119–135). Routledge.
Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic
achievement: Why does groupwork work? Anales De
Psicologia, 30(3), 785–791. https://doi.org/10.6018/
analesps.30.3.201201
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2021). Student team
learning and success for all. In N. Davidson (Ed.),
Pioneering perspectives in cooperative learning.
Theory, research, and classroom practice for diverse
approaches to CL (pp. 395–412). Routledge.
Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Assessment of collaborative learn­
ing. In G. T. L. Brown & L. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of
social and human conditions in assessment (pp.
302–318). Routledge.
Swan, K., Shen, J., & Hiltz, S. R. (2006). Assessment and
collaboration in online learning. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 45–62.
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v10i1.1770
Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice.
Vetenskapsrådet.
van Aalst, J. (2013). Assessment in collaborative learning.
In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, &
A. O’Donell (Eds.), The international handbook of col­
laborative learning (pp. 280–296). Routledge.
Webb, N. M. (1997). Assessing students in small colla­
borative groups. Theory Into Practice, 36(4), 206–212.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849709543770
Wiliam, D. (2009). Assessment for learning – Why, what
and how? University of London: Institute of
Education.
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning?
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
Page 14 of 15
Hammar Chiriac & Forslund Frykedal, Cogent Education (2022), 9: 2095885
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2095885

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Education (ISSN: 2331-186X) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 15 of 15