Fairness in assessing group projects: a conceptual framework for higher education

Group projects form a large and possibly growing component of the work undertaken for assessing students in higher education, and especially in post-graduate work in business. Yet the assessments sources, methods and purposes result in an array of combinations that the literature fails to capture in its full complexity. Tutors may be able to assess the work of the group as well as they might the work of any individual. But grades - and degrees - are awarded to individuals. Writers on higher education speak of using self- and peer-assessment as a way of qualifying the evaluation of group work so as to differentiate between individuals. But these commonly used terms - drawn from approaches to assessing individual work - are ambiguous or even misleading in the context of group work. This paper proposes a framework for discussing the assessment of group projects in an effort to help identify how the benefits of group learning and be translated into fairer summative assessments.

Assessment of the cortisol awakening response: Real-time analysis and curvilinear effects of sample timing inaccuracy

The cortisol awakening response (CAR) is typically measured in the domestic setting. Moderate sample timing inaccuracy has been shown to result in erroneous CAR estimates and such inaccuracy has been shown partially to explain inconsistency in the CAR literature. The need for more reliable measurement of the CAR has recently been highlighted in expert consensus guidelines where it was pointed out that less than 6% of published studies provided electronic-monitoring of saliva sampling time in the post-awakening period. Analyses of a merged data-set of published studies from our laboratory are presented. To qualify for selection, both time of awakening and collection of the first sample must have been verified by electronic-monitoring and sampling commenced within 15 min of awakening. Participants (n = 128) were young (median age of 20 years) and healthy. Cortisol values were determined in the 45 min post-awakening period on 215 sampling days. On 127 days, delay between verified awakening and collection of the first sample was less than 3 min (‘no delay’ group); on 45 days there was a delay of 4–6 min (‘short delay’ group); on 43 days the delay was 7–15 min (‘moderate delay’ group). Cortisol values for verified sampling times accurately mapped on to the typical post-awakening cortisol growth curve, regardless of whether sampling deviated from desired protocol timings. This provides support for incorporating rather than excluding delayed data (up to 15 min) in CAR analyses. For this population the fitted cortisol growth curve equation predicted a mean cortisol awakening level of 6 nmols/l (±1 for 95% CI) and a mean CAR rise of 6 nmols/l (±2 for 95% CI). We also modelled the relationship between real delay and CAR magnitude, when the CAR is calculated erroneously by incorrectly assuming adherence to protocol time. Findings supported a curvilinear hypothesis in relation to effects of sample delay on the CAR. Short delays of 4–6 min between awakening and commencement of saliva sampling resulted an overestimated CAR. Moderate delays of 7–15 min were associated with an underestimated CAR. Findings emphasize the need to employ electronic-monitoring of sampling accuracy when measuring the CAR in the domestic setting.