Group Assignment a Base for Learning through Improved Students

Engagement: A Case of EdPM 3rd Year Regular Students in 2016/17

Dibekulu Alem Asegu

Haramaya University
College of Education and Behavioral Sciences
Department of Educational Planning and Management
dibekulualem1@gmail.com
Mobile +251913417753
+251938266898
Sent to:dr. Mohammad Nasar (editorijsbar2@gssrr.org) First draft
 Abstract
The purpose of this action research was improving students’ engagement in group assignment
activities. Descriptive case study design was employed. Data were collected through semi
structured interview, document analysis and focus group discussion and analyzed QUALquan
approaches. CEBS students (570) and instructors (54) were the population. The samples were 12
instructors selected randomly) and 40 EDPM students selected purposively. The major problems
identified were lack of awareness on the advantage of group assignment, improper group
formation and assignment items preparation, lack of time and resources, massive marking, and
leniency of teachers. The designed and implemented strategies were; creating awareness,
preparing detailed and participatory assignment activities, follow upping every group member
activities and marking according to their specific contributions, and provision of frequent
feedback. The major changes observed were: students become aware and understand as group
assignments are advantageous as a result they move towards learning cooperatively better than
what was before. Students’ evaluation becomes free from massive marking. The assignments
were made clear, detailed and participatory which address the involvement with identified
responsibility and accountability for each of the students and as the result students interest
towards learning in group become improved.
KeyWords: Engagement, Group Assignment, Improvement
1.1 Background of the Study
Academic achievement of students at any level of education is highly determined by their active
engagement or involvement. Being actively engaged in every activities of their lesson can make
them to understand it easily and achieve better. As mentioned by Danielson (2016), effective
teachers understand engaging students in learning is vital to the work of education; without
student engagement, nothing else done will matter. Student engagement is not an accident. It is
results from careful planning and implementation. As students become mentally engaged in
learning, growth is maximized. Student engagement is not always about hands-on actions; it is
not about ‘busy work’ rather intellectual involvement is the definition of true engagement. All
students can learn, if students empowered, they can create relevant and meaningful experiences
for himself or herself and others to find learning success.

In the words of Willms, Friesen, & Milton, (2009) as cited in Taylor & Parsons, (2011), students
engagement has primarily and historically focused upon increasing achievement, positive
behaviors, and a sense of belonging in students so they might remain in school. Over time,
student engagement strategies were further developed and more broadly implemented as a way
to manage classroom behaviors. More recently, student engagement has been built around the
hopeful goal of enhancing all students’ abilities to learn how to learn or to become lifelong
learners in a knowledge-based society (Gilbert, 2007, in Taylor & Parsons, 2011). Student
engagement has become both a strategic process for learning and an accountability outcome unto
itself.

Students’ active engagement in the teaching and learning process can improve their level of
understanding as fast as possible. As far as assessment is one part and parcel of the teaching and
learning process they need to take part actively for their success. Group work activities and
assignments are assessment techniques in which of them students’ engagement should be
ensured. Amongst different mechanisms used to assess and teach students, group assignment is
the dominant and the most repeatedly practiced mechanism of continuous assessment regardless
of differences in usage and understandings. The benefits of group assignments are said to
include: higher order thinking (Cohen, 1994); better communication and conflict management
(Johnson & Johnson, 1996); greater understanding (Fall, Webb, & Chudowski, 2000); and the
development of skills transferable to the work environment such as teamwork, time management,
and interpersonal skills (Candy, et al., 1994).

Student engagement is generally considered to be among the better predictors of learning and
personal development. According to (Kuh, 2003), the premise is deceptively simple, perhaps
self-evident: The more students study or practice a subject, the more they tend to learn about it.
Likewise, the more students practice and get feedback on their writing, analyzing, or problem
solving, the more adept they should become aware of the subject matter. Similarly, Shulman
(2002) explained it as the very act of being engaged also adds to the foundation of skills and
dispositions that are essential to live a productive and satisfying life. That is, students who are
involved in educationally productive activities in college are developing habits of the mind and
heart that enlarge their capacity for continuous learning and personal development.

In our country Ethiopia as stated in the education and training policy, FDRE (1994), continuous
assessment in academic and practical subjects, including aptitude tests will be conducted to
ascertain the formation of all round profile of students at all levels . As a result, it becomes a
usual action evaluating students continuously using different tools like quiz, test, group and
individual assignments, home works, final exams and others accordingly at all levels of
education including higher intuitions.

However, as can be understood is that the group assignment as assessment is not going on the
right truck to improve students’ learning through their active engagement. The process of group
assignment usage seems give less attention for student’s engagement. Students’ involvement and
engagement shall be mandatory to improve students’ learning through assessments. Otherwise
the interconnections between learning and assessments become loose.

To sum up, this action research has been conducted with the initiation to improve students
engagement in group assignments and enhancing their learning in Haramaya University, CEBS,
EDPM taking 2017 3rd regular students and to forward practical mechanisms of improving
students engagement in group assignments by practicing and testing it with selected strategies in
action.
1.2Statement of the Problem
Amongst a number of techniques employed to teach and at the same time to assess students’
activities, group work or group assignment is the most frequently used in the teaching and
learning process. UNESCO (1996), learning to live together can be developed through group
works and assignments. Through engaging students in group activities it is assumed students can
learn better. According to Delors et al. (1996a, p.22 in UNESCO, 1996):
Learning to live together, by developing an understanding of others and their
history, traditions and spiritual values and, on this basis, creating a new spirit which,
guided by recognition of our growing interdependence and common analysis of these
risks and challenges of the future, would induce people to implement common
projects or to manage the inevitable conflicts in an intelligent and peaceful way.

As Gibbs (1993) explained group assignment has the potential to improve student engagement,
performance, marks and retention and usually succeeds in achieving this potential provided that
there are associated assessment mechanisms that leverage appropriate student learning behavior.
In the absence of such assessment mechanisms these benefits may not well materialize.
Allocating a single group mark to all members of a group rarely leads to appropriate student
learning behavior, frequently leads to freeloading, and so the potential learning benefits of group
work are likely to be lost, and in addition students may, quite reasonably, perceives their marks
as unfair.

Moreover, problems identified with group assignments include: “free riders” leaving all or most
of the work to others (Brokaw & Rudd, 2002; Morris & Hayes, 1997); clashes between group
members (Brokaw & Rudd, 2002; Chang, 1999; Morris & Hayes, 1997); and time management
and organizational problems (Morris & Hayes, 1997). In addition to this, Gemechu (2013)
reported that out of the ten types and techniques of continuous assessment identified in his study
area, only Field work, Demonstrations, Individual works and Paper pencil made exam were
found as a positive and the major types and frequently used type of continuous assessment
techniques practiced. However, Portfolios, Experiments, Extended essay, Group works,
Classroom participations and Attendance were found as a negative and the non- frequently used
continuous assessment techniques practiced, and he finally concluded as the overall status of
continuous assessment was found to be negative which had not been yet practiced properly in
his selected site.

As teachers need to use group assignment as one part of evaluation of students performance and
at the same time they choose it as important mechanism of teaching and assessing they could
practice it appropriately. Assessment of students’ performance through group assignments shall
be given a due attention for its fruitful endeavor. Assessment and learning are inseparable which
exist forever as one in the process. Hence, no one should claim on the failures of students
without considering the assessment technique and students engagement. Regarding the
relationship between assessments and learning, Wiggins (1993), described a “preferred future”
for assessment as the vision was one that makes assessment an integral part of learning guiding
the process and stimulating further learning. Similarly, Williams (2002), considered assessment
as a bridge for the teaching and learning and explained as it is only through assessment that we
can discover whether the instructional activities in which we engaged our students resulted in the
intended learning. That is why assessment really is the bridge between teaching and learning.

Whatever different mechanisms might employed to assess students and various challenges faced
in the processes, the focus of this action research was the only group assignment as assessment
for learning and improving students engagement in group assignments are treated as much as
possible. The reason behind gained from self experiences, classroom observations and
discussions the practice of assessing students using group assignment methods through strong
students engagement seems in problem. The practical observation insured that their involvement
and active engagement differs from subject to subject, time to time, situation to situation activity
to activity and soon.

With this end, it was targeted to answer the following leading questions.
1. What are the major problems that hinder students’ active engagement in group
assignment activities?
2. What strategies could be used to solve the identified problems and to improve students’
engagement in group assignment activities?
3. To what extent students’ engagement is improved after selected strategies has been
practiced?
1.1Objective of The Study
1.1.1 General Objective of the Study
The general objective of this action research was improving students’ engagement in group
assignment activities and enhancing students learning motivation by solving these identified
problems using appropriate strategies.
1.1.2 Specific Objectives of the Study
The specific objectives designed to address throughout this action were:

1. Identifying major problems which hinder students’ active involvement and engagement
in group assignments.
2. Designing and implementing appropriate mechanisms to minimize/ to solve the problems
based on the identified problems.
3. To learn about the effect of implemented strategies on students’ engagement in group
assignment activities and the teaching and learning process in general.
1.2 Significance of the Study
It may have the following significances:
1. It may give invaluable information for concerned instructors, students and responsible
bodies regarding the problems that hinder students’ active participation in group
assignment activities.
2. It may also enable anyone to think of appropriate mechanisms of solving problems of
students’ participation in group assignment activities besides what has been used in this
action research.
3. It may create a learning room for both participants of the action research in the first place
and perhaps for other collaborators in the study to understand the level of students’
participation in group assignment tasks and some other related areas.
4. Finally, it may be used as one source of information for further investigation regardless
of its narrowness in scope and area of concern.
 1.5. Delimitation of the Study
Conceptually this action research is designed to focus on identification participation problems of
students in group assignment activities and improving their engagement so as to teach students
more through assignments by designing appropriate mechanisms. Regarding the methodology
descriptive case study design was employed and qualitative method of data analysis has been
used. In relation to its focus of the study area it was made to be conducted on EDPM 3 rd year
students.
1.6. Limitation of the Study
The limitation of the study could be impossibility of making conclusions based on the findings
gained and also regarding the other assessment techniques what looks like students engagement.
Moreover, the mechanisms used to minimize the identified problems may not work for all
contexts.
 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
In this chapter, relevant reviewed literatures are included. It is highly focused on the theoretical
views of students’ engagement in group assignments. The concept of students’ engagement, its
purpose and the linkage with learning are reviewed. In addition to this the benefits of group
based learning and the challenges facing with selected mechanisms are treated well.
2.1 Concepts of Students’ Engagement and Group Assignment
2.1.1 Student Engagement: What is it?
Various definitions have been suggested to clarify what student engagement mean. As Chapman
(2003) it is students’ cognitive investment lies in active participation and emotional commitment
to their learning. The Australian Council of Educational Research (ACER) proposes another:
“students’ involvement with activities and conditions are important likely to generate high
quality learning” (ACER, 2008, p. vi). Some researchers have emphasized student motivation
and effort as a key factor in engagement (Schuetz, 2008). Others highlight the way educators
practice and relate to their students (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005), and the roles of institutional
structures and cultures (Porter, 2006). Yet others spotlight the socio political context in which
education and engagement take place (McInnis, 2003; Yorke, 2006), and the effect on students
of environmental factors such as family background and economic status (Law, 2005;
Miliszewska & Horwood, 2004).

Once to end with some other related definitions, student engagement is “participation in
educationally effective practices, both inside and outside the classroom, which leads to a range of
measurable outcomes” (Kuh et al., 2007 in Trowler, 2010), and as “the extent to which students
are engaging in activities that higher education research has shown to be linked with high-quality
learning outcomes” (Krause and Coates, 2008, 493 in Trowler, 2010). Similarly, Hu and Kuh
(2001:3 in Trowler, 2010), define engagement as “the quality of effort students themselves
devote to educationally purposeful activities that contribute directly to desired outcomes”.
2.1.2 Engagement for What and Whom?
The discourse of engagement also tends to make manifest some issues and functions of
engagement, while obscuring other more latent functions that may seem less noble. As Trowler
(2010), in his review of literature: engagement to improve learning was the most emphasized
one. Although the other; engagement to improve throughput rates and retention, for
equality/social justice, for curricular relevance, and for institutional benefit are necessary areas of
attention. As he explained the majority of literature on student engagement is concerned directly
or indirectly with improving student learning.
For Coates (2005, 26 in Trowler, and 2010), explained as:
The concept of student engagement is based on the constructivist assumption that
learning is influenced by how an individual participates in educationally purposeful
activities ... In essence, therefore, student engagement is concerned with the extent to
which students are engaging in a range of educational activities that research has
shown as likely to lead to high quality learning.
While for Graham et al. (2007, 233-234 in Trowler, 2010), the centrality of improving student
learning through engagement is not a new-fangled idea introduced with the concept of student
engagement, but one with a long history. That is:
The idea that students must be actively engaged in the learning process in order for it
to be effective is not new. The roots for active learning reach back in the literature to
John Dewey… A diverse body of educational research has shown that academic
achievement is positively influenced by the amount of active participation in the
learning process.
According to Trowler (2010) the beneficiaries of engagement varies as that of definitions. He
explained as students are the top beneficiaries of engagement. As that of Kuh (2009a, 698 in
Trwoler):
...engagement increases the odds that any student- educational and social
background notwithstanding – will attain his or her educational and personal
objectives, acquire the skills and competencies demanded by the challenges of the
twenty-first century, and enjoy the intellectual and monetary advantages
associated with the completion of the baccalaureate degree.
2.1.3 Group Work/Assignment: Linkage with Learning
There are many factors to bear in mind when planning your assessment tasks. While there are
numerous logistical and practical issues to consider, it is best to begin with thinking about the
kinds of learning that you want students to develop and try to get congruence between these
goals and the assessment tasks. It is not a matter of completing the outcomes and then deciding
on the assessment and teaching approaches, because the design process is most usefully
conceptualized as a cyclical rather than a linear process. As you write and refine the learning
outcomes, you need to be thinking simultaneously about the implications for assessment tasks
and for your teaching content and strategies. Furthermore, you need to periodically ask yourself
whether all of these aspects of your practice reflect your fundamental beliefs about teaching and
learning. As you plan your assessment tasks, always try to keep general good course design
dicta, basic assessment principles and your teaching and learning beliefs to the fore front (Spiller,
, 2011).

Group work and assignments at educational institutions is now considered as one of the best
approaches for developing students’ communication skills, acquiring knowledge and their
academic improvements in general. This agrees with the results of the study by (Smith & Bath
2006 in Bentley, and Warwick, 2013), who revealed that interaction of members engaging in
group assignments would develop generic skills, such as communication and critical thinking.
Group work appears to offer teachers an effective way to engage students, to increase the
complexity and challenge of the tasks that students gain experience of working on, to offer
students the opportunity for collaborative working, and to offer the possibility of reduced
marking loads (Gibbs 2009, in Bentley, and Warwick, 2013).

Active learning has become an important focus in this time of pedagogical change. While the
term encompasses broad arrays of practices, collaborative learning, or small group work, remains
an important element of active learning theory and practice. Research suggests that students learn
best when they are actively involved in the process (Davis, 1993 in Burke , 2011). According to
Wesley (2006 in Burke, 2011:39), “Students who participate in collaborative learning and
educational activities outside the classroom and who interact more with faculty members get
better grades, are more satisfied with their education, and are more likely to remain in college”.
A collaborative learning environment, as opposed to a passive learning environment, helps
students learn more actively and effectively (Murphy, Mahoney, Chen, Mendoza-Diaz & Yang,
2005 in Burke, 2011).
2. 2. Assessing Students Performance: Group Assignment as Assessment of, as
and for Learning
Good assessment provides useful information to report credibly to parents on student
achievement. A variety of assessment methods, fit for purpose, provides teachers with evidence
of what students know and can do, and their particular strengths and weaknesses. Teachers then
can report to parents on how far their child has progressed during the year, where they are
compared to the relevant standards, and what the student, the parent and the teacher need do to
improve the student's performance (VDET, 2005). In connection with the necessity and
availability of varied methods of assessment in relation with their purpose O’Farrell (2012)
described as many possible approaches used to assess learning including assignment as one
important method. Shepard (2000) also underlined the importance of improving the content of
assessments to enhance learning although it is not the only option to ensure success.

Grouping large number of students assigned in one classroom is necessary. The class room can
be arranged into a set of smaller groups to teach in proper way. More effective teachers use more
than one type of group (Abadizi, 1987). He listed learning cycle groups, and cooperative
grouping in which group investigation, peer tutoring and team assisted individualization as
effective cooperative grouping.

A small group is given one assignment sheet. The group completes and hands in this single
assignment. Evaluation is based on how well students work together to complete the assignment
sheet and performance on completed sheet. Group assignment help students: to facilitate social
interaction among students, to teach students how to work with others, to increase student
engagement in learning, to assure that all students learn, to motivate students, to improve
students self concepts and attitudes towards self and school (ibid). Similarly, Ford and Morice
(2003) found that the most valuable aspects of group assignments are: learning from others and
sharing ideas, learning to work in a group which reflects real industry, the social interaction, the
division of work which saves time, the fact that you can achieve more – a larger project and
better quality and gaining communication skills.
Assessment is used for, of or as learning. According to Lorna (2003), assessment of learning is
predominant kind of assessment in schools. Its purpose is summative, intended to certify learning
and report to parents and students about students’ progress in school, usually by signaling
students’ relative position compared to other students. The assumption behind assessment for
learning is class room assessment can enhance learning. Assessment for learning shifts the
emphasis from summative to formative assessment, from making judgments to creating
descriptions that can be used in the service of the next stage of learning. The other pillar,
assessment as learning focuses on assessment as means of learning beyond its measuring
scheme. Self assessment is the heart of the matter.

2.3 Realizing the Benefits of Group Based Learning: Focus on Assignment

The advantages of group work and group project work to students have been comprehensively
demonstrated both in general (Johnson et al., 1991 in Gibbs, 1992) and in many varied specific
contexts. Meta analyses of large numbers of studies of the implementation of small group
learning within individual discipline areas usually show large positive impacts on student
performance, marks, attitudes towards learning and persistence or retention. As Springer et al,
(1999:21) in (Gibbs, 1992 )reviewed plenty of studies (more than 383) studies and on the basis
of the evidence supported “widespread implementation of small-group learning” in
undergraduate education in the three disciplines studied. Problem based learning (PBL) also
invariably uses learning in groups and again meta-analyses of studies comparing PBL with other
pedagogies show consistent benefits to student learning processes (such as the extent to which
students adopt a deep approach) and outcomes (such as marks) from PBL ( Dochy et al, 2003, in
Gibbs, 1992).

More over Gibbs and Simpson (2004) found that students tend to gain higher marks from
coursework assignments than they do from examinations. Chansarkar & Raut-Roy (1987) in
Gibbs and Simpson (2004) studied the effects of combinations of various forms of coursework
with examinations. They found that all combinations of coursework of varying types with
examinations produced better average mark rates than did examinations alone. Bridges et al.
(2002) in the same study explained that the differences in coursework and exam marks in six
subjects at four universities. They found coursework marks to be higher by one third of a degree
classification in English and History (similar to the Oxford Polytechnic finding) and higher by
two thirds of a degree classification in Biology, Business Studies, Computer Studies and Law.
2.4 Challenges to Engage Students in Group Assignment Activities
Engaging students is not free from challenging conditions. The challenge may arise from
students, teachers, the curriculum or the learning environment. The results of the study
conducted by Carini, Kuh and Klein (2004) in corroborating many other researchers have
found: that student engagement is linked positively to desirable learning outcomes such as
critical thinking and grades. Although the relationships between engagement and academic
performance were not as robust as we might hope, they were more conclusive than those
reported by Ewell (2002) in Carini, Kuh and Klein( 2004). To the degree that student
experiences, engagement, and academic performance change over the course of a collegiate
career (and there is considerable evidence suggesting that this is so), the asynchrony in data
collection points likely accounts for the inconclusive patterns found in their study area.
2.5 Mechanisms of Improving Students’ Engagement
A group of students coming together to work on an assignment is not the same thing as a well-
functioning team. The students in any given group may sometimes work together, but they may
also be inclined to work independently, simply pooling their work with no discussion, and they
may spend a great deal of time in conflict over work-related or personal issues. In contrast,
members of an effective team always work together-sometimes physically together and
sometimes apart, but constantly aware of who is doing what. They take different roles and
responsibilities, help one another to the greatest possible extent, resolve disagreements amicably,
and keep personal issues (which may occur when any collection of people work together) from
interfering with the team functioning. With a group, the whole is often equal to or less than the
sum of its parts; with a team, the whole is always greater. After survey of employers, it was
found that teamwork skills (along with communication skills) are at the top of the list of
attributes they would like to see more of in their new hires Oakley, Felder, Brent, and Elhajj,
(2004).

They also mentioned several methods for equipping students with those of the skills to enhance
students’ engagement in group work/assignment. Two important first steps in turning groups into
effective teams are to set out a clear set of guide lines for team functioning and to have the
members formulate a common set of expectations of one another. Two forms: the Team Policies
Statement and the Team Expectations Agreement. The policy statement provides guidance on
effective team functioning, outlining different team roles and the responsibilities that go with
each role, procedures for working on and submitting assignments, and strategies for dealing with
uncooperative team members. The Team Expectations Agreement serves two purposes: it unites
the team with a common set of realistic expectations that the members generate and agree to
honor, and it also serves as a “quasi legal document” to prevent students from making invalid
claims about what they were supposed to do. Research has shown that commitments made in
public are less likely to be violated (Salacik & Pfeffer, 1978 in Oakley, Felder, Brent, and
Elhajj, 2004).

In particular, certain types of courses may require another set of team roles in addition to the
functional roles of coordinator, checker, recorder, and monitor. In a lab course, different students
may be called on to take principal responsibility for experimental design, equipment calibration
and operation, data recording, processing and analysis. Theory-based interpretation of results
and analogous classifications may be constructed for project-based courses including engineering
design. These roles should also be spelled out in the Policy Statement. Each time you teach a
course, make notes of things you wish you had inserted or changes you think would make the
statement more effective, and incorporate those changes before you teach your next course.
Another measure that helps build team coherence early is to have the members agree on a team
name— perhaps one that reflects their common interests (Millis & Cottell, 1998 in Oakley,
Felder, Brent, and Elhajj, (2004).). Both the students and you will enjoy some of the creativity
that this task frequently inspires. You may or may not tell them that the name has to be within
the bounds of good taste, depending on how you feel about undergraduate humor.
 4. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY OF THE
STUDY
In this chapter, the research design used the population and sampling techniques, data collection
instruments and analysis techniques are reported.
4.1 Research Design
Descriptive case study design was employed for this action research as it is appropriate to
explore facts as they are, without over exaggeration or simplification (McMillan and
Schumacher, 2004 in Yalew, 2013). More over, this approach enables to analyse both
qualtitative and quantitave data and to make valid conclusions, and also to design appropraite
mechanisms of solving identified problems (Gay, Mills & Airasian, 2006). In addition, Case
study is a strategy of inquiry in which the researcher explores in depth a program, event, activity,
process, or one or more individuals. Cases are bounded by time and activity, and researchers
collect detailed information using a variety of data collection procedures over a sustained period
of time (Stake, 1995).
4.2 Data Source (Primary and Secondary Sources)
Both primary and secondary were used. According to Kothari (1985) primary data is original
information collected for the first time. Taking this into account most of the primary data sources
for this study were, instructors and students. To make the data collected through primary sources
complete and to support it with secondary evidences students mark list, previously used
assignments were used as a secondary source of data.
3.3 Population, Sample and Sampling Techniques
This action research has come in to practice in Haramaya University, CEBS, Department of
Educational Planning and Management focusing on EdPM 3rd year students in 2016/17. The
population were the total number of instructors (N=54), all undergraduate regular students
enrolled in the college in the academic year (N=570). From this, the target populations were all
instructors as mentioned and EdPM students. From this, population EDPM 3rd year students
(N=40) were selected as a sample using purposive sampling as the practitioner was assigned to
teach three courses in second semester of the indicated year and this may be a good opportunity
to test the strategies and to see the changes and out of 54 (after rejecting 24 instructors who
served less than 4 years in the college) 12 from the rest 30 were selected randomly (three from
each of the departments, EDPM, SINE, Psychology, AECD).
3.4 Instruments for Data Collection
3.4.1 Interview
The interview guides were prepared and designed in the way to find out useful insights,
prospects, challenges and practices related to group assignment usage as assessment and in
promoting students learning through active engagement. Thus, selected instructors were
interviewed after clear justification of the purpose.
3.4.2 Focus Group Discussion
Focus group discussion was conducted with students who were grouped into 5 groups of which 8
students in one. One of the group members assigned as reporter to submit the summarized idea.
The reported documents were used as sources of data for this action research.
3.4.4 Document Analysis
Documents like students assignment results in focus from different courses in the four of the
departments in the college and previously prepared and used assignments were the selected
documents including related researches in the area. These documents were collected from any
volunteer teachers in the college and analyzed as per the purpose of the study.
3.5 Data Collection Procedures and Analysis
It was made clear and open discussion was conducted with participants of the study (students and
instructors) regarding the overall intention of the study to make it ethical. For the data obtained
through interview and focus group discussion the qualitative method of data analysis were used.
The data gained from the document were supported quantitatively and qualitatively described.
 4. DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND
INTERPRETATION
4.1Demographic Analysis of Participants of the Study
The participants used as samples of this action research were both instructors and students as
mentioned earlier. The general description of these samples looks like the following.
Table 1: Number of Participants
No Participants Sex Remark

M F T

1 Students 24 16 40 All are EDPM 3rd year regular BA students

2 Instructors 12 - 12 All are above MA in educational qualification and

serviced for more than 4 years in the college

Regarding students, the current year EDPM 3rd year students (N=40) were the selected samples
on which the actions were implemented. From these students 4 females and 6 males were
selected and interviewed purposively taking in to consideration their ability of explanation for
items designed for the interview. Focus group discussion was made with 8 students (excluding
the interviewed 10) who were group leaders in the formal cooperative learning arrangements. On
the other hand, 12 (3 from each department) instructors were selected in the college. This was
made for the purpose of identifying the major problems exhibited in each of the departments and
to see the trend of assignment practice as assessment technique across departments.
4.2 Interview Data Analysis and Interpretation
As interview results with students indicated in relation to the how of teachers’ used assignments
in assessing their performance all interviewees repeatedly explained as group assignment was the
most usual and commonly used method of assessment used by all teachers for all courses
regardless of the differences in approaches employed by both teachers and students.
One of the interviewee students explained as:
“I think any of the teachers in the college use assignment as one of the evaluation of
students’ performance. In my stay in this department all the teachers who thought me
used assignment regardless of their differences in follow upping, support, marking and
the like. Even students know as assignment is one activity in any courses.”
They also explained as assignments are good opportunities to increase students’ results that they
lost in actual written examinations.
What one of the students in the interview explained was:
Most of the students take assignment as one of the chosen assessment technique which
they can score more than formal examinations in spite of the fact that their
participation as well as effort they put forth for the assignment is that much. Some of
the students are only passive participants in the assignment whose name is listed as
group. In general, by default assignments results are good opportunities for students to
get a minimum passing grade.”
Supporting this, group work at education institutions is now considered as one of the best
approaches for developing students’ communication skills and acquiring knowledge. This also
agrees with the study by Smith & Bath, (2006) who revealed that interaction of members
engaging in group assignments would develop generic skills, such as communication and critical
thinking. Group work appears to offer teachers an effective way to engage students, to increase
the complexity and challenge of the tasks that students gain experience of working on, to offer
students the opportunity for collaborative working, and to offer the possibility of reduced
marking loads (Gibbs, 2009).
But, what practically observed is not as stated above in the literature. That is, assignments are
given for students for the sake of using continuous assessment rather than its power of assessing
students perfectly and supporting students to learn.

Similarly, the interviewed instructors also described as group assignment is usually used to
assess students’ academic performance. All of them ensured as they provide group assignments
although their mechanisms of scoring, assignment preparation, follow upping of students is
different. Two of the interviewee explained as they give 5-10%, the other four give 10-15%, the
rest 6 score it 20 -30% marks accordingly.
The way to assess the participation of the group members highly vary according to their
explanation. Some said as all of the group members are asked to check their involvement, others
said that one of the group members can be asked to present what they did and the result
determined by the presenter. Only one of the interviewee said, “I ask the entire group member
one by one to check their participation even though it is time consuming.” This implies that lack
of uniformity of using group assignments for assessing as the same time learning students
through group assignments.
In relation to the second interview question that is, the participation level of students during and
after the group assignment activities all students explained that group assignment seems as it
belongs to one or two of the group members. The maximum activity exhibited by students
during group assignment are being presenting during in doing the assignment and contributing
money if necessary rather than to be actively attending and involving to attempt the questions
and tasks given to do. As they explained even students who are good at in their academic
performance chose to do by their own not to waste their time. In general, as students explanation
the participation of students in group assignment is not up to the standard and it is almost
ineffective. They explained also most of the teachers were not actively follow to what extent
students are engaged in assignments. They only ask to submit within the given time. Few of the
instructors try to check students’ involvement by asking questions during presentation.

Most of the interviewed instructors ensured that group assignment is for the sake of fulfilling
continuous assignment and they explained as group assignments are done by some of the
students in group. They also indicated that there must be mechanism of checking their
involvement during valuing the assignment which might increase students’ participation if
possible. They claim lack of time as a main constraint not to use it effectively. Authentic
intellectual engagement requires a deeper reciprocity in the teaching-learning relationship where
students’ engagement begins as they actively construct their learning in partnership with
teachers, work toward deep conceptual understanding, and contribute their own ideas to build
new knowledge or devising new practices in activities that are “worthy of their time and
attention (Friesen, 2008, p. 8, as cited in Dunleavy & Milton, 2009, p. 14).

Even if they tried to explain in one or another way something about students’ participation in the
previous items of interview, students listed problems which are obstacles of group assignment.
They mentioned ability differences among group members, teachers leniency, questions
relevance and relatedness with the main course, the value given for assignments, the way
teachers use to assess each group members, lack of awareness of students, shortage of time are
the most frequently explained by students.
Teachers also mentioned students carelessness, shortage of time to cover courses particularly
block courses and also to correct assignment papers, impossibility of checking the participation
of each student continuously as problems.
Lastly, both students and teacher interviewees forwarded their solutions which they think that
might improve students’ engagement in group assignment activities. The summarized
suggestions are: continuous follow upping, mixed group formation based on abilities, focusing
on each and every part of the assignment during correcting the assignment and also valuing the
participation of each student critically rather than massive marking, creating awareness on group
working advantages, preparing participatory assignment activities rather than focusing on more
general issues and relating directly with details of the course. Specifying responsibilities and
accountability of each the members in a group.
4.3. Document Data Analysis and Interpretation
Arbitrarily collected continuous assessment documents used by instructors (some were taken
from posted results of students by the teacher) were analyzed to see the seriousness of the
problem and to see the differences in marking within groups and among students. For this, 6
different courses offered by different instructors’ continuous assessment documents were tried to
be seen to understand the how of valuing assignments. What were observed from the documents;
the results recorded for students are almost the same with differences of 0.5 to 1 within group
members, even different group members also didn’t have that much exaggerated differences
which may lead to conclude the performances of students in group assignment were not taken in
to consideration which obviously observed their differences in actual exam results (which show
at least 10 to 20 mark differences). These also indicate that the attention of teachers in scoring
group assignments is under question.
Moreover, items used in the group assignments were collected to see their appropriateness,
clarity, the ability to initiate students active participation and interest to work together and the
like. It was found that most of the assignments given for students were general, few in number
(3- 5 questions) which are unable to see the responsibilities of each participant in the group.
Even some items need collection of data and getting information from extra bodies which may
not relevant and that much necessary to develop and participation of students and encourages
dependence of one on another rather than contributing for the assignment. Perhaps this highly
depends on the intention of the course and the need of the teacher what to assess. But the
problem here is the items used for assignment purpose were not in line with motivating students
to work hard and to contribute their own skills and knowledge.

4.4. Data Analysis from Focus Group Discussion

The most agreed upon ideas regarding the problems of group assignment as a means of
assessment and learning were: lack of students awareness to understand the importance of
working in group to learn better than learning individually, improper group formation and lack of
flexibility to use group assignment, the way teachers design the assignment questions, teachers
follow up leniency, were amongst the repeatedly stated and raised problems.

Besides these, the time given for assignments to complete, the mark (value) given for
assignments, the presences of different assignments given from different courses, lack of
resources and references were seconded by students during focus discussion.
 5. ACTION PLAN, IMPLEMENTATION, EVALUATION AND

REFELECTIONS
Based on the data collected and interpretation, the following action strategies were designed,
implemented and evaluated. After all, lessons learned are forwarded for further usage.
5.1 Action Plan or Designed Strategies
In action research what is the most important is taking actions to minimize or solve the problem
identified. Hence, the following actions and strategies were designed.
Table 2: Designed Action Strategies
No. Action strategies Participants of the Ways of implementation Implementation time
action
1 Problem based discussion with students Selected section Preparing discussion points and 10-14/2017
students and practitioner creating discussion room For 1 hr

2 Creating awareness for students regarding group work in Practitioner and Preparing scientific points from the January 15/2017
particular (the way how they engage in assignment tasks) students literature and discussion with all Briefing training
students For 1 hr

3 Grouping students with critical analysis of their ability/ academic Students and Using Group formation strategies February 16-
performance as main factor, proximity in dormitories, sex, practitioner Ability, proximity, interest and other 17/2017
friendship and other factors to make it fair. Revising the present factors were considered
grouping

4 Preparing and offering detailed assignments which give chance to Grouped students Relating all the items included in the February 18- 25/2017
participate all students, that can cover most contents of the course and practitioner assignment to the contents of the each 3 weeks for
and giving for the group (for three EDPM courses) and setting course discussion
follow upping agreements.

5 Following upping (using structured check list) how each group Students and Assigning each student to report their March 1- April,
member participation in the group assignment at least twice a practitioner progress turn by turn during each group 5/2017.
week for 30-40 minutes meeting 30-40 minutes

6 Making students to present their assignment individually Students with the course Participating each of the students in the April 5-15/2017
teacher group. 10-15 minutes for
each of the students
7 Valuing the work and conducting discussion with all students Students and Using open discussion method April, 11-12/2017
practitioner

8 Completing the first cycle and starting the second cycle taking Students and Recycling the process by adding the April 13 – May
corrective feedbacks from the first cycle. For 2 weeks practitioner discussion points 16/2017

9 General discussion on how they benefited from working in group Students and Following normal discussion May 17/2017
practitioner 1 hr
10 Reporting writing Practitioner Following the format Starting from May
18, 2017
5.2 Action Implementation
Based on the designed action strategies the following were taken from starting to the end.
1. Deep discussion (for 1 hr twice) on the identified problems related to advantage of group
work and assignment for their learning, the role of students was conducted with students
as a whole. Through the discussion, strong agreement was built between students and the
course teacher to go ahead as needed.
2. Awareness was created to avoid misconceptions from students mind.
3. Students become arranged in 8 groups (five members in each) based on their academic
achievement after labeling them as low, medium and high achievers as a major factor,
and sex distribution, proximity and friend ship, as supplementary conditions after
analyzing their arrangement previously.
4. Assignments were made clear, participatory which specifically show the contribution of
each group members more of related to the course contents.
5. The participation of students was monitored twice a week in the way that each member of
the group was made to report the progress of their work through guided questions for the
instructor to make them more responsible to their task and at the same time to improve
their engagement.
6. The final work was submitted after presentation by randomly selected students turn by
turn in front of their friends and after hot question and answer from others.
7. The weight given for the assignment was made to be fair and initiating which encourages
students to work hard. The complaint raised on the massive marking of students which
didn’t take the actual performances of each group member is solved by following and
attending them frequently.
8. Discussion was conducted with students regarding the ongoing activities to improve
further and ideas were collected to be included for the second round assignment. As a
result the second assignment was given taking all comments of the first cycle into
consideration with the same procedure.
5.3 Action Evaluation and Reflection
5.3.1 Action Evaluation
As explained above under action plans and implementation the results gained were evaluated
accordingly and treated as follows.
1. The conducted deep discussion on the identified problems related to the issue was found
fruitful to design possible mechanisms of solving problems. Thus, the discussion create
strong agreement between students and the course teacher.
2. The awareness level of students regarding group assignment was different. Some saw it
as trivial activity rather than supporting their learning. Others consider it as troublesome
activity. Even those who are academically better students were not able to understand
group assignment as a way of learning from others. Hence the created awareness to
change varied differences minimizes it and brought them towards accepting working
together to learn more.
3. Students’ group formation was found effective than what was previously happened.
Students become more interested and involved in the group assignment freely; they were
active to explain what they have. From the observation and continuous follow up 85% of
the students become active participant which was less than 45% before the action was
taken.
4. Making assignments to be detailed starting from the instruction and more of
participatory which need the contribution of each group member in different ways rather
than making them general and impossible to have participation in answering them
enhances what students want to know and to share knowledge among their friends. They
got opportunities to take part as the questions are detailed enough. More over it was
possible to make activities in line with students’ interest and their contributions were
observed.
5. Monitoring students’ participation and engagement twice a week in the way that each
member of the group was made to report the progress of their work through guided
 questions from the instructor grew their responsibility and accountability. They also
considered themselves as respected and their contribution is important for the work
given. Even they tried to exercise leading group, reporting and explaining ideas in front.
6. Presentation made with students become successful, participatory and a room which give
opportunity to show every students performance.
7. The weight given for the assignment was acceptable and encouraging to students as it
was made to be fair and initiating which enhances students to work hard. The complain
raised on the massive marking of students which didn’t take the actual performances of
each group member into consideration is solved.
8. Students in second cycle of the action become more responsible, accountable and
interested to work together and the way they attend each of the course become better and
better.
5.3.2 Reflection: Lessons Learned From the Action Research
As a practitioner I have learned the following:
1. Group assignment should be taken as important part of students’ assessment by relating it
with their actual learning rather than challenging them by giving less important too hard
activities. It should be kept up to the standard.
2. Follow upping students activities every time, before, during and after group assignment
activities, and creating awareness on the necessity, supportiveness and importance of
group assignment enhances the participation as the same time the achievement level of
students.
3. Groups should be formed by taking students academic achievement, sex, friendship and
other necessary conditions to increase their learning interest. Increase heterogeneity to
bring homogeneity.
4. It is advisable is making assignment activities more specific, understandable, accessible
and interesting to increase all students engagement.
5. The more students get the chance to show their work the more they feel responsible for
the task. Giving chances to present what they did develops students’ confidence; increase
the rate of participation and involvement in the lesson.
 6. The weight given for assignment activities should be appropriate, which considers the
energy, time, resources used to complete the task and the contents covered in the
assignment.

References
Abadzi, H. (1985). "Ability Grouping Effects on Academic Achievement and Self Esteem: Who
Performs in the Long Run as Expected." Journal of Educational Research, 79:1, 36-40.
17, 265-278.
Bentley, Y. and Warwick, S. (2013). Students’ experience and perceptions of group
assignments. The Education Academy. Retrieved on March 10, 2016 from
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/gen-176-0.pdf
Brokaw, A. J. & Rudd, D. V. (2002). Strategies for team selection for group projects in
marketing. In Great Ideas for Teaching Marketing. Retrieved October 17, 2002 from
http://www.swlearning.com/marketing/gitm/gitm4e08-07.html
Bruke, A. (2011). Group Work: How to Use Groups Effectively. The Journal of Effective
Teaching, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2011, 87-95
Candy, P. C., Crebert, G. & O’Leary, J. (1994). Developing lifelong learners through
undergraduate education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Carini, R. M., Kuh. G. D., and Klein, S.P., ( 2004).Student Engagement and Student
Learning:Testing the Linkages.Research in Higher Education, in press.
Chang, V. (1999). How can conflict within a group be managed? In Martin, K., Stanley, N. and
Davison, N. (Eds), Teaching in the Disciplines/Learning in Context, 59-66. Proceedings
of the 8th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of Western Australia,
February 1999. Perth: UWA. Retrieved November 27, 2002 from the World Wide Web
http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1999/chang.html
Cohen, E. (1994). Collaborative learning: higher education, interdependence, and the authority
of knowledge. Baltimore:John Hopkins University Press.
Danielson, C. (2012). Component 3c. Engaging Students in Learning. Arkansas TESS
Training.Arkanas Education Department. Accessed from
www.arkansased.gov/.../3c._Engaging_Students_in_Learning.pdf on February 2017.
Fall, Webb, and Chudowsky .(2000). Moving Forward with Literature Circles.Accessed from
 https://books.google.com.et/books?isbn=0439176689 on February, 2017.
FDRE. (1994). Education and Training Policy (1st Edition). Addis Ababa: Saint George Printing
Press.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E. & Airasian, P. 2006. Educational research: Competencies for analysis
and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Gemechu Abera. (2014). Assessing Factors Affecting the Implementation of Continuous
Assessment in Rift Valley University College with Special Attention to Technical and
Vocatıonal Educational Training (TVET) Programs at Adama Main Campus, East Shoa,
Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia, East Africa. Middle Eastern & African Journal of
Educational Research. Issue 7. Retrieved on may 20, 2016 from,
http://www.findartcles.com/cf-0/moFCG/4-26/62980772/p1/article.jhtml. Pp74-9.
Gibbs, G.( 1992). The assessment of group work: lessons from the literature. Assessment
Standards Knowledge Exchange, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education. Retrieved on March 20, 2016 from www.brookes.ac.uk/aske
Gibbs, J. and Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions Under Which Assessment Supports Students’
Learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Issue 1, 2004-05. Retrieved on
April 16, 2016, from https//www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdf.
Gibbs, G. (2009) The assessment of group work: lessons from the literature, Assessment
Standards Knowledge exchange, Brooks University, UK.
Herna´ndez, R. (2012). Does continuous assessment in higher education support student
learning? High Educ (2012) 64:489–502. DOI 10.1007/s10734-012-9506-7 Published
online: 24 January 2012 .
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1996). Conflict resolution and peer mediation programs in
elementary and secondary schools: A review of the research. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 459-506.
Kuh, G.D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change,
35(2),24-32.
Lorna, E. (2003). Assessment as Learning:Using Classroom Assessment to [Maximise ] Student
Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press.
Lowe, J.P.(2007). Assessment that Promotes Learning. Retrieved on march 13,2016 from
www.schreyerinstitute.psu.edu
MOE.(2015).Education Sector Development Program IV (ESDP IV) 2010/2011 – 2014/2015
2003 EC – 2007 EC. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.
Morris, R. & Hayes, C. (1997). Small group work: Are group assignments a legitimate form of
assessment? In Pospisal, R. & Willcoxson, L. (Eds), Learning Through Teaching, 229-
233. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Murdoch University,
February 1997. Perth: Murdoch University. Retrieved October 17, 2002 from the World
Wide Web http://cea.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1997/morris.html
Oakley, B., Felder, R.M., Brent, R. and Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning Student Groups into
Effective Teams. journal of student centered learning . 2(1). Pp 12-13. Retrived on May,
12, 2016. From www4.ncsu.edu/…/users/…/Oakley-papers (…)
Parsons, D.E. & Drew, S.K. (1996). Designing group project work to enhance learning: Key
elements. Teaching in Higher Education, 1 (1), 65-80.
Shepard A.(2000). The Role of Assessment in a Learning Culture. Educational Researcher,
Vol. 29, No. 7, pp. 4–14.
Spiller, D. (2011). Assessment tasks to promote learning. The university of Waicato. Retrieved
on March 8,2016, from https://leep.berkeley.edu/sites /default/files/users/Mark-Wilson17.pdf
Shulman, L.S. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning. Change 34(6), 36-45. Taylor, L.
& Parsons, J. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. Current Issues in
Education,14(1). Retrieved on March 11, 2016 from http://cie.asu.edu/
Smith, C. & Bath, D. (2006). ‘The role of the learning community in the development of
discipline knowledge and generic graduate outcomes’. Higher Education, 51 (2) pp. 259-86.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Taylor, L. & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving Student Engagement. Current Issues in Education,
14(1). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/
Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. Department of Educational Research.
Lancaster University. The higher Education Academy. Retrieved on March 11, 2016
from www.columbia.edu/cu/tat/pdfs/assessment.pdf
VDET.(2005). Current Perspectives on Assessment. Retrieved on March 15, 2016 from
https://www.dartmouth.edu/neudc2012/docs/paper-212.pdf
Wiggins (1993). Learning, Teaching and Assessment Guide. Retrieved on March 20, 2016 from
http://www.ltag.education.tas.gov.au
Williams, C. (2002). Learning on-line: A review of recent literature in a rapidly expanding field.
J. Furth.High. Educ. 26, 263–272.
Yalew Endawoke. (2011). Basic Principles and Applications of Research Methodologies. Addis
Ababa. Alpha Printing Press.