Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 607-651

  Webb, Noreen M ^a   Nemer, Kariane M ^a   Chizhik, Alexander W ^a   Sugrue, Brenda ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032272874     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/00028312035004607     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Awbrey, M. (1992, September). History-social science group assessment in California (high school level). Paper presented at the Conference of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing on What works in performance assessment, University of California, Los Angeles.
2. Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer interaction and problem solving: When are two heads better than one? Child Development, 59, 87-96.
3. Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. (1992). Principles for measuring teamwork skills. Human Factors, 34, 469-475.
4. Baron, J. B. (1994, April). Using multi-dimensionality to capture versimilitude: Criterion-referenced performance-based assessments and the ooze factor. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
5. Bartlett, L. D. (1992). Students successfully grapple with lessons of history in innovative group performance tasks. Social Education, 56, 101-102.
6. Bossert, S. T. (1988-1989). Cooperative activities in the classroom. Review of Research in Education, 15, 225-252.
7. Brannick, M. T., Prince, A., Prince, C., & Salas, E. (1995). The measurement of team process. Human Factors, 37, 641-651.
8. Brennan, R. L. (1992). Elements of generalizability theory (Rev. ed.). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing.
9. Buros, O. K. (1974). Tests in print II. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
10. California State Department of Education. (1985). Mathematics framework for California public schools, kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
11. California State Department of Education. (1992). Mathematics framework for California public schools, kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
12. Cohen, B. P., & Cohen, E. G. (1991). From groupwork among children to R&D teams: Interdependence, interaction, and productivity. Advances in Group Processes, 8, 205-225.
13. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1-36.
14. Connecticut State Board of Education. (1987). Common core of learning. Hartford, CN: Connecticut State Board of Education.
15. Connecticut State Board of Education. (1992). Connecticut Academic Performance Test. Hartford, CN: Connecticut State Board of Education.
16. Fall, J. R., Webb, N. M., & Wise, N. (1995, April). Group discussion and large-scale language arts assessment: Effects on students' comprehension. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
17. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1998). High-achieving students' interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 227-267.
18. Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19. Hastie, R. (1986). Experimental evidence on group accuracy. In B. Grofman & G. Guillermo (Eds.), Information pooling and group decision making (pp. 129-157). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
20. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 413-424.
21. Hooper, S., Ward, T. J., Hannafin, M. J., & Clark, H. T. (1989). The effects of aptitude composition on achievement during small group learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16, 102-109.
22. Kansas State Board of Education. (1993). Kansas curricular standards for science. Topeka, KS: Author.
23. Laughlin, P. R., & Branch, L. G. (1972). Individual versus tetradic performance on a complementary task as a function of initial ability level. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 201-216.
24. Laughlin, P. R., & Ellis, A. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177-189.
25. Linn, R. L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 1-16.
26. Lomask, M., Baron, J., Greigh, J., & Harrison, C. (1992, March). ConnMap: Connecticut's use of concept mapping to assess the structure of students' knowledge of science. Symposium presented at the meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Cambridge, MA.
27. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d'Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class ability grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423-458.
28. Maryland State Department of Education. (1994). Maryland School Performance Assessment Program: Public release tasks. Baltimore, MD: Author.
29. Mathematical Sciences Education Board, National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation of the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30. Mathematical Sciences Education Board, National Research Council. (1993). Measuring up: Prototypes for mathematics assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31. Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). The composition of small groups. Advances in Group Processes, 9, 237-280.
32. Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181-192.
33. Neuberger, W. (1993, September). Making group assessments fair measures of students' abilities. Paper presented at the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing's Conference on Assessment questions: Equity answers, University of California, Los Angeles.
34. O'Neil, H. F., Allred, K., & Baker, E. L. (1992). Measurement of workforce readiness: Review of theoretical frameworks (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 343). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
35. Pandey, T. (1991). A sampler of mathematics assessment. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
36. Pomplun, M. (1996). Cooperative groups: Alternative assessment for students with disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 30, 1-17.
37. Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 132-160). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
38. Saner, H., McCaffrey, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., & Bell, R. (1994). The effects of working in pairs in science performance assessments. Educational Assessment, 2, 325-338.
39. Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. (1991, June). What work requires of schools. A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, The Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS).
40. Shavelson, R. J., & Baxter, G. P. (1992). What we've learned about assessing hands-on science. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 20-25.
41. Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42. Shipman, V. C. (1985). The New Jersey Test of Reasoning Skills. Totowa, NJ: Totowa Board of Education.
43. Skon, L., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Cooperative peer interaction versus individual competition and individualistic efforts: Effects on the acquisition of cognitive reasoning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 83-92.
44. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
45. State Student Assessment Programs Database, School Year 1994-1995. (1996). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers [Producer], Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Lab [Distributor].
46. Webb, N. M. (1980). A process-outcome analysis of learning in group and individual settings. Educational Psychologist, 15, 69-83.
47. Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366-389.
48. Webb, N. M. (1995). Group collaboration in assessment: Multiple objectives, processes, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysts, 17, 239-261.
49. Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. (in press). Developing productive group interaction in middle school mathematics. In A. M. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psycholog (pp. 841-873). New York: Macmillan.
51. Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D. , & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 406-423.
52. Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
53. Wise, N., & Behuniak, P. (1993, April). Collaboration in student assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta.