Mixing up Group Projects with Individual Components

Group Projects are an exciting and engaging way to both drive and assess student-learning while building community in our classrooms.  However, assigning a group grade for one or more major assessments in a course can elicit anxieties on behalf of both the instructor and the students.  Did every student meet the learning objectives?  Did students contribute equitably?  Was the group dynamic supportive and productive?

One thing you can do to mitigate these anxieties is to incorporate an individual component within the group project.  This gives you, as the instructor, a glimpse into each individuals’ progress and mastery, and gives each student some individual ownership/responsibility.  When the individual component is thoughtfully designed and completed before the group work starts, it increases individual contributions to group efforts.  When the individual component takes place after the group component, students are more likely to invest in the group work, knowing that they need to continue that work on their own for the next step.

What follows are the three methods I regularly use for combining individual and group work into cohesive project experiences.  For context, in my lower level courses (Calculus), I typically assign two projects per semester, each project spanning roughly 4 weeks.  Usually, for the first project, I use Methods 1 or 2 (individual work first, followed by group work) to help students ease into collaborative project work.  This also helps buy time at the beginning of the semester when students are still figuring out their course schedules and rosters are in flux, since it delays forming groups for another week.  For the second project, I assign the individual component as a follow-up to the group work (Method 3), since by the end of the semester students are more confident and are ready to explore open-ended problems individually.

Method 1: Individual Prep-work for the Main Event

• Format: Part 1 (Individual, uniform) – Part 2 (Group)
• The Basics: The Project is broken into two parts, with Part 1 laying groundwork for the main focus of the Project, which is in Part 1.  Part 1 is roughly 1/4 the size of Part 2 in terms of workload.
• Details: In this scenario, the Project begins with the individual component, with every student completing the same initial project assignment (Part 1).  Students have 1 week to complete and submit this individually.  The instructor reviews these assignments (assigning an individual grade), returns them to the students, and assigns groups.  In their groups, students review and revise their Part 1 of the project and complete Part 2 collaboratively.  Each group turns in a single project report containing Part 1 and Part 2 of the project.  Groups maintain a detailed meeting log with a record of all meetings, goals, and participation. After submitting their final report, students complete a self-reflection with directed questions on learning outcomes, self-performance, and group dynamics.
• Pros and Cons:
  • Advantages:  Students feel more confident discussing the project material within their group because they have already received feedback from the instructor on Part 1.  The instructor has the opportunity to redirect students’ efforts if they have gone astray in Part 1, so that everyone is on the right track at the outset of Part 2.
  • Disadvantage:  The instructor must quickly return feedback on Part 1 so that the project work isn’t interrupted for more than a few days.
• Example:  In Calculus 2, one project I use focuses on Drug Dosage Modeling.  In Part 1, students model how the body eliminates a drug from the bloodstream using a simple differential equation (natural decay), explore a few simple scenarios, and answer some discussion questions setting up the next part of the project.  In Part 2, students work in groups to explore several more complex scenarios such as continuous dosing, intermittent continuous dosing, ongoing discrete dosing, and missed doses.

Method 2: Individual “Subject Matter Experts” Coming Together to Collaborate

• Format: Part 1 (Individual, not uniform) – Part 2 (Group)
• The Basics: The Project is broken into two parts, with Part 1 laying groundwork for the main focus of the Project, which is in Part 2.  However, this time there are a set number of variations of Part 1, with each variation playing a role in Part 2.  Part 1 is roughly 1/4 the size of Part 2 in terms of workload.
• Details: Similar to Method 1, the Project begins with the individual component, but this time each student is assigned a variation of Part 1 to complete.  For example, suppose there are variations A-B-C-D of Part 1. Assign each student one of these variations. They have 1 week to complete and submit their assigned Part 1 individually.  The instructor reviews these assignments (assigning an individual grade) and returns them to the students.  Each student is now dubbed a “Subject Matter Expert” for their Part 1 Variation. The instructor forms groups so that each group contains a “Subject Matter Expert” for each variation. In their groups, students review and revise their Part 1 of the project (now containing all variations A-B-C-D) and complete Part 2 collaboratively.  Each group turns in a single project report containing Part 1 (All Variations) and Part 2 of the project.  Groups maintain a detailed meeting log with a record of all meetings, goals, and participation. After submitting their final report, students complete a self-reflection with directed questions on learning outcomes, self-performance, and group dynamics.
• Pros and Cons:
  • Advantages:  By design, each student is bringing a vital piece of information into their group, and must explain that piece to their group members in order for the project to advance.  Like Method 1, the students feel more confident because they have already received feedback on their piece before they take on the “expert” role in their group.  The students also enjoy getting to see how the different variations of Part 1 play crucial roles in Part 2 to create a cohesive end-product.
  • Disadvantage:   This works best if you can quickly return Part 1 so that the project can continue without much interruption, so the instructor needs to plan ahead. You may not have a perfect class size so that you can include every variation in every group.  In this case, the instructor can provide a solution outline or starter for the missing Part 1 variation for those groups.
• Example:  In Calculus 1, I have used a project called “Mutual Funds,” adapted from Calculus, An Active Approach with Projects by Hilbert, Schwartz, Seltzer, Maceli, and Robinson.  In Part 1, students are each assigned one of four funds.  Each fund comes with a “clue” such as a graph, sentence description, formula, etc.  Using their clues, students answer a set of questions and make individual predictions about their fund, submitting their work individually. In Part 2, as a group, students examine different investment scenarios using the information they discovered about these funds in Part 1.

Method 3: Group Work Followed by Individual Exploration/Expression

• Format: Part 1 (Group) – Part 2 (Individual, not uniform)
• The Basics: The Project is broken into two parts, with Part 1 being the main focus of the Project and Part 2 being an extension of what students learned in Part 1.  Part 2 is not uniform and involves student choice.  Students are asked in Part 2 to make selections to continue what they learned in Part 1.  Part 2 is 1/4-1/3 of the workload of the total project.
• Details: Students complete Part 1 of the project in their project groups, over a span of 3 weeks, submitting one Group Report.  Groups maintain a detailed meeting log with a record of all meetings, goals, and participation. Ideally, the instructor returns these group reports quickly with feedback and a group grade. After they submit their group report, they begin working on Part 2 individually.  Part 2 asks the students to take what they learned in Part 1 and expand on it, with individualized choice.  Students complete Part 2 within a week (or two) and submit individual reports. After submitting their Part 2 report, students complete a self-reflection with directed questions on learning outcomes, self-performance, and group dynamics.
• Pros and Cons:
  • Advantages:  Students can support one another as they work through Part 1.  Students appreciate having a choice on how to apply the lessons learned in Part 1 for their individual report in Part 2.  It also gives each individual student the opportunity to demonstrate how well they internalized lessons learned from Part 1.
  • Disadvantages:  With Part 1 containing the bulk of the material/work, these Part 1 Project Reports can be quite long/involved. It can be difficult for the instructor to grade/return Part 1 quickly enough so as to not disrupt momentum going into Part 2 if you have a large class.
• Example 1:  In Calculus 2, my students learned how to adapt the logistic growth model (traditionally used for population modeling) to model an epidemic.  This project was an adaption with permission from Patrice Geary Tiffany (2020), “1-007-T-Text-SeparationOfVariables,” https://www.simiode.org/resources/8038, part of SIMIODE Project Database.  In Part 1, the students learned how to use data from WHO to model the Ebola outbreak in West Africa during 2014 using both an exponential model and a logistic growth model.  In Part 2, students had to find COVID-19 data from their choice of location over their choice of time-frame and create a logistic growth model based on their dataset.  Both Parts included in-depth discussion questions.
• Example 2: In Calculus 2, my students learned how to apply the concepts and notation of sequences and series to fractals.  In Part 1, students worked in groups to explore Koch’s Snowflake and the Cantor Set, proving essential and interesting properties of these fractals.  In Part 2, students had the option to either (1) document three examples of fractals found in real life or (2) create their own fractal artwork and document the process.  Both options involved a discussion component on some of the technical details of the fractals.